May et al v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP et al
| Erika Christianna May and Richard Lee May, Sr. |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP |
| 4:2011cv03516 |
| September 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Harris |
| Nancy F. Atlas |
| Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 |
| Plaintiff |
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
76
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Second Motion for Summary Judgment andMotion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant toFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. # 68] is GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs claims areDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . It is furtherORDERED that Defendants Second Motion for Plaintiffs to Appear andShow Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed As a Result of PlaintiffsFailure to Remit Payments as Ordered by This Court and Request for Oral Hearing[Doc. # 70] is D ENIED AS MOOT. It is furtherORDERED that Defendants are AWARDED attorneys fees of $49,084.50and costs of $1,698.76.A separate final judgment will issue.SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 30th day of August, 2013.P:\ORDERS\ [(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )
|
|
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion toDismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) [Doc. # 38] is DENIED withoutprejudice to refiling regarding the claims in Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint.It is furtherORDER ED that on or before July 3, 2013, Defendants must file a status reportinforming the Court whether they intend to file a summary judgment motion on anyremaining claims in the Third Amended Complaint. It is furtherORDERED that any summary judgment mot ions Defendants seek to submitmust be filed on or before July 17, 2013. It is further66(...continued)to appoint a board of directors and managers; (2) financial assistance to Freddie Macprovided by the federal government; (3) any federal policy, dire ctives, regulations,executive orders, or laws that affect Freddie Macs day-to-day operations regardingloan servicing; and (4) any plan proposed by the federal government for Freddie Macto emerge from the conservatorship. Id. Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs actuallyhave served eight interrogatories, as opposed to the two interrogatories permitted bythe Court. The Court does not reach this issue.P:\ORDERS\11-2011\3516msj.wpd 130624.1441 19ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Parti al Summary Judgment AgainstDefendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Doc. # 56] is DENIED.Plaintiffs Due Process claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is furtherORDERED that Defendants Motion to Quash Plaintiffs Interrogatories toDefendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and for Protective Order [Doc.# 55] is GRANTED..(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )
|
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 Southern 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.
