Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Hudgins

Justia Dockets & Filings Fifth Circuit Texas Eastern District Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Hudgins

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Hudgins

Plaintiff:	Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Defendant:	George D. Hudgins
Case Number:	6:2008cv00187
Filed:	May 13, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office:	Securities/Commodities Office
County:	Nacogdoches
Presiding Judge:	Leonard Davis
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Plaintiff
Jury Demanded By:	7:25 Fraud - Commodities Leverage Contracts

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 2, 2009	Filing 231 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling Silette's objections to Petiton 34 and denying 221 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Enjoin the Sale of the Condominium Pending Appeal. The Court finds that the Receiver has complied with the prov isions of 28 USC 2001(b), and orders that the Receiver's sale of the condominium is approved, as described in Petition 34 and pursuant to the terms set forth in the Sales Contract received by the Court (Document # 219 ). However, the closing of such sale SHALL NOT OCCUR within the first three days following the entry of this Order so that Silette will have an opportunity to pursue a stay in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, if she so desires. The Receiver shall notify Silette if and when the Receiver petitions the Court for distribution of any of the proceeds from the sale of the condominium. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 11/02/09. cc:attys 11-02-09 (mll, )

Date Filed

Document Text

November 2, 2009

Filing 231 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling Silette's objections to Petiton 34 and denying 221 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Enjoin the Sale of the Condominium Pending Appeal. The Court finds that the Receiver has complied with the prov isions of 28 USC 2001(b), and orders that the Receiver's sale of the condominium is approved, as described in Petition 34 and pursuant to the terms set forth in the Sales Contract received by the Court (Document # 219 ). However, the closing of such sale SHALL NOT OCCUR within the first three days following the entry of this Order so that Silette will have an opportunity to pursue a stay in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, if she so desires. The Receiver shall notify Silette if and when the Receiver petitions the Court for distribution of any of the proceeds from the sale of the condominium. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 11/02/09. cc:attys 11-02-09 (mll, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Hudgins
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Represented By:	Kim G Bruno
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: George D. Hudgins
Represented By:	Charles M Meadows, Jr
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?