⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

4 opinions for “Chastain v. Citimortgage Inc”

District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2018-09-26 · Published · cited 4× · 340 F. Supp. 3d 1334
AMY TOTENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1338I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, StopLoss Specialists, LLC ("StopLoss") and John Lewis ("Lewis") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") bring this diversity action against Defendants, VeriClaim, Inc. ("VeriClaim") and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. ("
District Court, N.D. Texas · 2014-02-24 · Published · cited 45× · 999 F. Supp. 2d 919; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23283; 2014 WL 717191
ORDER BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations in this case. Plaintiff filed objections on February 5, 2014, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCE
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2014-09-11 · Published · cited 0× · 46 F. Supp. 3d 1361; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126924; 2014 WL 4542447
OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on: 1) Emergency Water & Fire Restorations, Inc.’s (“EWF”) Motion to Enforce Settlement [69] (“Settlement Motion”); 2) The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company’s (“Charter Oak”) Motion for Summary Judgment [96]; 3) Charter Oak’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Expert [102] (“Expert Motion”); 4)
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012-09-24 · Published · cited 12× · 491 B.R. 217; 2012 WL 4471580; 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 4411
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BETH A. BUCHANAN, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtor initiated an adversary proceeding in this Court asserting that the bank purposefully and systematically attempted to collect debts discharged in bankruptcy from the debtor and a putative class of similarly situated debtors in violation of both the United States Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Deb