Morgan v. Synchrony Bank
| Sanford P. Morgan |
| CT Corporation System, BP Products NA, INC. and Synchrony Bank |
| 7:2020cv00724 |
| December 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Robert S Ballou |
| Thomas T Cullen |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
SCHEDULING ORDER:( Status Conference set for 4/23/2021 02:30 PM in Roanoke before Judge Thomas T. Cullen., Bench Trial set for 8/23/2021 09:30 AM in Roanoke before Judge Thomas T. Cullen. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs.). All nondispositive pretrial motions and issues are hereby referred to the Honorable Judge Robert S. Ballou, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 1/26/2021. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) Bench Trial set for 8/23/2021 09:30 AM in Roanoke before Judge Thomas T. Cullen. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs. Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM before Judge Thomas T. Cullen. Dial in instructions emailed to counsel and mailed to pro se party. (Notice mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(ck) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint by Synchrony Bank. (Attachments: #1 Corporate Disclosure Statement)(Gibson, Paul) |
| Filing 9 Notice of Filing Requirement to Synchrony Bank - Pursuant to Standing Order dated May 15, 2000, and the adoption of Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, effective December 1, 2002, nongovernmental corporate parties are directed to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement with their first appearance, pleading, motion or response. #Click here to access the Corporate Disclosure Statement Form. This form should be electronically filed in this matter as ordered. (aab) |
|
Filing 8
Oral ORDER granting #7 Motion to Substitute Party. Entered by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 12/16/2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
|
| Filing 7 Consent MOTION to Substitute Party by BP Products NA, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Gibson, Paul) |
| Filing 6 Paper State Court Records received from Roanoke City General District Court, GV20007334, consisting of 1 Volume, (Paper records available for viewing in the Clerk's Office.) (aab) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint by BP Products NA, INC..(Gibson, Paul) |
|
Filing 4
Order Requesting Transmittal of Case File from Roanoke City General District Court. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 12/3/2020. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
|
| Filing 3 Magistrate Consent Notice to Parties. #Click here to access the Consent Form (Notice mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab) |
| Filing 2 Positive Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by BP Products NA, Inc., identifying corporate parent BP PLC. (aab) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Roanoke City General District Court, case number GV20007334. (Filing & Administrative fee $ 402, AVAWDC-3561866), filed by BP Products NA, INC. (Attachments: #1 State Court-Warrant in Debt, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(aab) |
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 Western 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.
