Orient Min, et al v. Bk China, et al
| 2:1998cv00238 |
| April 3, 1998 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Central Office |
| Bruce S. Jenkins |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| 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
457
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER-IT IS ORDERED: granting 358 Motion to review taxation of costs filed by Defendant Bank of China; granting 393 Motion to Dismiss filed by Counter Defendant Orient Mineral. ; granting 400 Motion to Dismiss filed by Coun ter Defendants Art Wilson, Preston Jones, R. Ellsworth McKee; denying 427 Motion for Entry of Default; Orient Mineral's conditional request for leave to file answer and counterclaim as set forth in Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Cross-Mo tion for Default Upon Orient's Counterclaim and for Relief from Judgment 449 is DENIED; and the paper styled as an "Answer and Counterclaim of Orient Mineral Company to Bank of China's Amended Counterclaim" 452 is hereby STRICKEN; granting in part and denying in part as moot 432 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 439 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on 2/19/10. (jmr)
|
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 Utah 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
| Search for this case: Orient Min, et al v. Bk China, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
