Rowe et al v. Aurora Commercial Corp. et al
| James J. Rowe and Sharon H. Rowe |
| Aurora Commercial Corp. and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC |
| 5:2013cv21369 |
| August 1, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Beckley Office |
| Greenbrier |
| Irene C. Berger |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 Truth in Lending |
| Plaintiff |
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
82
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 71 MOTION to Stay Discovery pending resolution of its 59 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 4/17/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)
|
|
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Pending with the court is defendant's 59 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's oppose defendant's motion have filed a 61 Response. Plaintiff's 45 second amended complaint and [6 1] response in opposition make reference to a number of exhibits. However, the second amended complaint contains no such exhibits or attachments. So that the court may have a complete record on which to rule on defendant's motion, plaintiff's are hereby ORDERED to file their exhibits to which their second amended complaint refers with the Clerk of Court no later than 01/23/2015. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 1/16/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons expressed herein, defendants' 11 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' 23 MOTION for leave to Amend is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. As to the current defendants - Nationst ar and Aurora - this action is dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff's are granted leave to amend their complaint to add a breach of contract action against the current owner of their obligation, Citibank. Plaintiff's are ordered to file th eir second amended complaint on or before 08/14/2014. Furthermore, defendants' 16 MOTION to exceed page limit for their reply in support of their motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants' 32 MOTION to stay discovery pending resolut ion of defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' 38 MOTION to compel discovery from defendant Aurora, plaintiffs' 40 MOTION to compel discovery from defendant Nationstar, defendants' 42 request for a hearing, and plaint iffs' 45 MOTION for modification of the court's scheduling order are all DENIED as MOOT. A new scheduling order will be entered when the proper defendant has been added to this case. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 8/1/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
|
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.
