Construction Funding v. National Credit Union Administration Board
| Construction Funding |
| GE Childs & Associates, RM Construction of Utah, Randy Mathews, Equity Title, National Credit Union Administration Board and Grant E. Childs |
| National Credit Union Administration Board, RM Construction of Utah and Randy Mathews |
| Construction Funding and National Credit Union Administration Board |
| 2:2011cv01076 |
| November 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Central Office |
| Salt Lake |
| Brooke C. Wells |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| 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
39
MEMORANDUM DECISION finding as moot 9 Motion to reconsider the State Court's denial of its original motion to compel; granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 20 Motion to Strike. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for reasonable costs, including attorneys fees, incurred in filing its motion to compel is DENIED. (Docket No. 9.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), the Court finds each party should bear its own reaso nable expenses related to the motion. Costs to Plaintiff are not warranted where Defendant previously provided a large portion of information Plaintiff requested, and agreed to further supplement its responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/13/13. (jlw)
|
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
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.
