Padgett v. INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES et al
| David L. Padgett |
| INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES and ONEWEST BANK, FSB |
| 3:2010cv00008 |
| February 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia |
| Martinsburg Office |
| Berkeley |
| John Preston Bailey |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| 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
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 57 Motion to Stay; the Court finds that the defendants Objection [Doc. 56]should be, and hereby, is OVERRULED IN PART and HELD IN ABEYANCE IN PART. In addition, the Court hereby RE-REFERS this matter to Magistra te Judge James E. Seibert to CLARIFY his Order Holding in Abeyance Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel [Doc. 51] as to which documents the magistrate judge ordered the defendant to produce. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 8/16/10. (copy emailed to Magistrate Judge Seibert)(jko)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Dismiss; denying 15 Motion to Stay; denying 18 Motion to Strike ; granting 19 Motion ; the Court finds that the defendants Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11] should be GR ANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, the defendants Motion to Stay [Doc. 15] should be DENIED, the defendants Motion to Strike [Doc. 18] should be DENIED, and the plaintiffs Motion to Correct [Doc. 19] should be GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/19/10. (jko)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
