Ramsay v. Sanibel & Lancaster Insurance, LLC et al
| Christopher Ramsay |
| Sanibel & Lancaster Insurance, LLC, Roberta L. Garcia-Guajardo, Steven Guajardo and Gary J. Hunter |
| 2:2011cv00207 |
| April 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Norfolk Office |
| Norfolk City |
| Mark S. Davis |
| F. Bradford Stillman |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| Both |
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
99
MEMORANDUM ORDER: adopting the Report and Recommendations as amended re 80 Report and Recommendations. The Court will ADOPT the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on October 27, 2015, AS AMENDED by this Memorandum Order. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's first objection to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court AMENDS the Report and Recommendation to note that the IRS� 39;s liens against Guajardo attach to Guajardo's one-half interest in the property, and such federal tax liens shall be paid out of one-half of the proceeds of the property sale, after payment of the costs of sale and the superior mortgage lien. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's second objection to the Report and Recommendation of theUnited States Magistrate Judge. The Court OVERRULES Garcia-Guajardo's first, second, and fourth through eighth objections to the Report and Recommendat ion of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court, however, SUSTAINS Garcia-Guajardo's third objection and hereby AMENDS the Report and Recommendation tonote that the current holder of the mortgage lien on the property is Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-NC3 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates. Copy of Memorandum Order mailed to all counsel of record and to the pro se Defendants at their address of record. Defendants are under an obligation to notify the Court of any change of address, and a failure to do so will not relieve Defendants of the consequences of any such failure. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/13/2016. (bgra)
|
|
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections to the Court's proposed sale order. By separate order, in conformity with the procedure set forth in the Court's June 30, 2015 Memorandum Order, the Court will refer the matter to the magistrate judge co-assigned to this matter. (See Order for Details). Copy of Memorandum Order mailed to the pro se Defendants at address of record and counsel of record. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/4/2015. (bgra)
|
|
Filing
64
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER - the Court DENIES IN PART and TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART Defendants' Petition for Rehearing/Reopening of Case, ECF No. 32. To the extent Defendants seek relief in such motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3), the Court DENIES Defendants' motion. However, to the extent Defendants' motion contends that the judgment against them is void under Rule 60(b)(4), the Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT such motion, pending an evidentiary hearing. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to confer with Plaintiff's counsel and then contact the Clerk of the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing to address the parties' factual dispute over whether Defendants v/ere validly served with pr ocess. The Court ADVISES Defendants that they have fourteen (14) days after the entry of this Opinion and Order to schedule such a hearing and that, if they fail to do so, the Court will resolve their motion on the papers currently before it. The Cou rt TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT Plaintiff's Motion for Execution Sale, pending the resolution of Defendants' Rule 60 (b) (4) motion. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/19/15. Nunc pro tunc to 12/15/14, the date the original Opinion and Order was signed and entered. (Copies distributed as directed 6/19/15)(afar)
|
|
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES IN PART and TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART Defendants' Petition for Rehearing/Reopening of Case, ECF No. 32. To the extent Defendants seek relief in such motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3 ) and 60(d)(3), the Court DENIES Defendants' motion. However, to the extent Defendants' motion contends that the judgment against them is void under Rule 60(b)(4), the Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT such motion, pending an evidentiary he aring. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to confer with Plaintiff's counsel and then contact the Clerk of the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing to address the parties' factual dispute over whether Defendants were validly served with proce ss. The Court ADVISES Defendants that they have fourteen (14) days after the entry of this Opinion and Order to schedule such a hearing and that, if they fail to do so, the Court will resolve their motion on the papers currently before it. The Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT Plaintiff's Motion for Execution Sale, pending the resolution of Defendants' Rule 60(b)(4) motion. re 32 MOTION Petition for ReHearing/Reopening of Case filed by Roberta L. Garcia-Guajardo, Sanibel & Lancaster In surance, LLC, Steven Guajardo. 37 MOTION Execution Sale re 27 Writ Issued filed by Christopher Ramsay. Copy mailed to Pro Se Defendants at address of record and to counsel of record on 12/15/2014. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 12/15/2014 and filed on 12/15/2014. (bgra)
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
