Pullen-Umhra v. Department of Defense
| Nicole Pullen-Umhra |
| Department of Defense |
| Navy Federal Credit Union |
| 3:2022mc05015 |
| September 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Benjamin H Settle |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 00 U.S.C. ยง 0000 Cause Code Unknown |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 JUDGMENT BY COURT: Pellen-Umhra's Motion to Quash, Dkt. #1 , is DENIED. The Navy Credit Union shall comply with the subpoena. This case is closed. (MW) (cc: Movant via USPS) |
Filing 5
ORDER denying Movant's #1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(MW) (cc: Movant via USPS)
|
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of Andrew W. Sherbo filed by Respondent Department of Defense re #1 MOTION to Quash (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Fairchild, Katie) |
| Filing 3 RESPONSE, by Respondent Department of Defense, to #1 MOTION to Quash. (Fairchild, Katie) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Katie Denise Fairchild on behalf of Respondent Department of Defense. (Fairchild, Katie) |
| FILING FEE RECEIVED: $ 49.00, receipt number TAC 3-20 (MW) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Order Pursuant to Customer Challenge Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, filed by Movant Nicole Pullen-Umhra. Noted by Clerk for 9/30/2022 (MW) |
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 Washington 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.
