Urrego v. Samuel White P.C.

Urrego v. Samuel White P.C.

Plaintiff:	Nazira Urrego
Defendant:	Samuel White P.C.
Case Number:	3:2017cv00437
Filed:	June 12, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Richmond Office
County:	Loudoun
Presiding Judge:	M. Hannah Lauck
Nature of Suit:	Other Fraud
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 30, 2019	Filing 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 12/30/2019. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
July 26, 2018	Filing 30 MEMORANDUM ORDER. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and Urrego's objections. Finding no error in the R&R, the Court: ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation IN FULL, (ECF No. 28); DENIES Urrego's Second Motion for Default J udgment, (ECF No. 11); DENIES Urrego's Third Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 25); DENIES SIWPC's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 12); CONSTRUES SIWPC's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) as a motion to quash service and GRANT S the motion to quash service, (ECF No. 13); GRANTS SIWPC's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (ECF No. 13); DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Urrego's Virginia state law fraud claims, (ECF No. l ); DENIES Urrego's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 18); and ORDERS Urrego to serve SIWPC within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. The Court WARNS Urrego that failure to properly serve SIWPC within thirty (30) days could result in abatement. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 07/26/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Date Filed

Document Text

December 30, 2019

Filing 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 12/30/2019. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

July 26, 2018

Filing 30 MEMORANDUM ORDER. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and Urrego's objections. Finding no error in the R&R, the Court: ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation IN FULL, (ECF No. 28); DENIES Urrego's Second Motion for Default J udgment, (ECF No. 11); DENIES Urrego's Third Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 25); DENIES SIWPC's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 12); CONSTRUES SIWPC's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) as a motion to quash service and GRANT S the motion to quash service, (ECF No. 13); GRANTS SIWPC's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (ECF No. 13); DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Urrego's Virginia state law fraud claims, (ECF No. l ); DENIES Urrego's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 18); and ORDERS Urrego to serve SIWPC within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. The Court WARNS Urrego that failure to properly serve SIWPC within thirty (30) days could result in abatement. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 07/26/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Urrego v. Samuel White P.C.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nazira Urrego
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Samuel White P.C.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?