Malick et al v. NCO Financial Services, Inc. et al
| Faith Malick and Ronald Reed |
| NCO Financial Services, Inc. and Does 1 - 10 |
| 4:2014cv01545 |
| June 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Galveston |
| Lee H Rosenthal |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| 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
29
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 23 MOTION for Attorney Fees. The court orders the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $14,728.15 in fees and $414.30 in costs. By July 20, 2015, the parties must submit an agreed form of final judgment. Payment is due no later than August 7, 2015. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER entered: The parties in this case settled, but they submitted their remaining dispute over attorneys fees to the court. NCO Financial Services, Inc. and Does 1-10, have moved to strike the plaintiffs reply. (Docket Entry No. 26). They argue that the plaintiffs violated the Local Rules by filing the reply without leave and by submitting new evidence with the reply. In the alternative, the defendants move for leave to file a surreply. By June 26, 2015, the defendants may file surreply no longer than five pages. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
|
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.
