Cases

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court in the above referenced foreclosure action is (1) a Motion for Summary Judgment Sled by Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Dover Mortgage Capital 2005-A Corporation, Grantor Trust Certificate Series 2005-A (“Defendant”/ “Deutsche”) (Doc. 6);1

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, as Trastee for the Certificate-holders of Dover Mortgage Capital 2005-A Corporation, Grantor Trust Certificate Series 2005-A’s (“Deutsche”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Doc. 25. Having considered the motion and response, the facts in the record, and the ap

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER George C. Hanks Jr., United States District Judge Defendant U.S. Bank National Association1 (“U.S. Bank”) moves for summary judgment in this foreclosure action. In 2009, Plaintiffs Darren and Heidi Siegel (“the Siegels”) defaulted on their real property lien. According to the Siegels, the Texas four-year statute of limitations on foreclosure began

ORDER DAVID HITTNER, District Judge. Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Document No. 19) and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 20). Having considered the motions, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the defendant’s motion should be granted and the plaintiffs motion should be denied. I. BACKGRO

ACCEPTED 03-14-00561-CV 5480881 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS June 9, 20

ORDER XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judge. On this day the Court considered Appellant Gene R. Rosas’ appeal of the Bankruptcy Judge’s summary judgment order relating to the mortgage and foreclosure of his home. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. I. BACKGROUND Appellant Gene R. Rosas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on Sept

ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION On January 16, 2014, pro se Plaintiffs Luis Gonzalez and Sonia Gonzalez commenced this action against various defendant mortgage companies, banks, and individuals (counsel to and executives for said mortgage companies and banks), alleging violations of the United States Constitution and the U

428 B.R. 43 (2010) In re MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, et al. f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al., Debtors. Callan Campbell, et al., Appellants, v. Motors Liquidation Company, et al. (f/k/a General Motors Corporation), et al., Appellees. Bankruptcy No. 09 Bk 50026(REG). Adversary No. 09 Civ. 6818(NRB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 13, 2010. </

ORDER GRANTING PILGRIM REO, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEBTOR’S COUNTERCLAIMS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED CRAIG A. GARGOTTA, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE On June 20 and 21, 2017, came on for hearing Pilgrim REO, LLC (“Pilgrim”) and Party-in-Interest Capital Crossing Servicing Company, LLC (Capital Crossing) (also referred to as “Responde

407 B.R. 463 (2009) In re GENERAL MOTORS CORP., et at., Debtors. No. 09-50026 (REG). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. July 5, 2009. *471 Appearances:[1] Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, by Harvey R. Miller (argued), Stephen Karotkin (argued), Joseph H. Smolinsky (argued), New York, NY, for Debtors and Debto

Danforth, J. On the 24th day of May, 1881, the plaintiff, by Van Name, his attorney of record, obtained judgment against the defendant for $230 damages and $107.86 costs and disbursements. On the 14th of April, 1882, the defendant paid the plaintiff $150, and took from him a satisfaction piece. Both plaintiff and defendant refuse to pay the attorney his costs in this action, and the attorney in his own behalf moved the court to