Starlight Builders Ltd. v. Bazemore et al
| Starlight Builders Ltd. |
| Angelee Bazemore, Vincent John Bazemore, Jr. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 4:2010cv00259 |
| May 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Sherman Office |
| Denton |
| Richard A. Schell |
| Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
119
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION - terminated: GRANTING IN PART 79 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DENYING 70 MOTION to Remand filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angel ee Bazemore, GRANTING IN PART 61 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Compel filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazemore, DENYING AS MOOT 59 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Starlight Building Ltd, GRANTI NG IN PART 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazemore, DENYING AS MOOT 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment, GRANTING 101 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplement to Plaintiff's Response to B azemore Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss/Compel Arbitration filed by Starlight Building Ltd, DENYING AS MOOT 62 MOTION to Quash MOTION Modify filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazemore, GRANTING 110 MOTION to Amen d/Correct 36 Response in Opposition to Motion, 103 Status Conference filed by Starlight Building Ltd, DENYING AS MOOT 117 Amended MOTION Ruling re 115 Joint MOTION Status Report and Request for Ruling by Plaintiff and United States of America filed by Starlight Building Ltd, GRANTING 99 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplement to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Starlight Buil ding Ltd, GRANTING 108 MOTION for Leave to File Declaration in Supplement to Affidavit of Gretchen Benolken filed by Starlight Building Ltd, DENYING AS MOOT 65 First MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Pending Motions filed b y Starlight Building Ltd, DENYING 54 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazemore, GRANTING 97 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Starlight Building Ltd, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 6 Unopposed MOTION for Judicial Sale to Proceed through the United States Marshal filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DENYING 13 MOTION for Severance filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazem ore, DENYING AS MOOT 115 Joint MOTION Status Report and Request for Ruling by Plaintiff and filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DENYING AS MOOT 37 First MOTION to Strike 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, DENYING AS MOOT 29 MOTIO N for Summary Judgment filed by Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Angelee Bazemore, DENYING AS MOOT 68 Emergency MOTION to Stay Foreclosure Action filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Starlight and the Bazemores are ordered to arbitrate their co ntractual dispute. Starlights claim for judicial foreclosure on its lien will remain STAYED and Defendant United States motion for a judicial foreclosure is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and may be re-urged as appropriate at the conclusion of the arbitration. Should the court need to resume consideration of the foreclosure actions, the United States may renew its motion for judicial sale by the United States Marshal Service. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 3/4/2016. (baf, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
