Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Order Dismissing With Prejudice Echeverria vs Bank of America (6 10 Cv 01933)

Order Dismissing With Prejudice Echeverria vs Bank of America (6 10 Cv 01933)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 52|Likes:
Published by Isabel Santamaria
On October 22, 2012, merely two weeks before trial, Judge John Antoon II dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. After months of awaiting a response on 3 Motions, Plaintiffs's case is dismissed while they were making trial preparations. The Order mentions the Defendant Bank of America's evidence as a priority and the Plaintiff's evidence is only reviewed because Defendant's defense for RESPA mentions the Plaintiff's QWR's. All other exhibits were not considered in its totallity and the pro se Plaintiffs in this case were expected to fulfil the same high pleading standards as if they had an attorney. Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial was never acknowledged nor was the Plaintiff's limited time to file their Third Amended Complaint because Judge Antoon had did not initially mail the Order dismissing the Plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs called the clerk and confirmed that the Order was issued 6 days prior. The court then mailed out the Order 7 days after the Order was issued. The Plaintiffs had only a few short days to amend their pleading and were not able to proof-read it in order to file it on time. Plaintiffs will appeal.
On October 22, 2012, merely two weeks before trial, Judge John Antoon II dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. After months of awaiting a response on 3 Motions, Plaintiffs's case is dismissed while they were making trial preparations. The Order mentions the Defendant Bank of America's evidence as a priority and the Plaintiff's evidence is only reviewed because Defendant's defense for RESPA mentions the Plaintiff's QWR's. All other exhibits were not considered in its totallity and the pro se Plaintiffs in this case were expected to fulfil the same high pleading standards as if they had an attorney. Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial was never acknowledged nor was the Plaintiff's limited time to file their Third Amended Complaint because Judge Antoon had did not initially mail the Order dismissing the Plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs called the clerk and confirmed that the Order was issued 6 days prior. The court then mailed out the Order 7 days after the Order was issued. The Plaintiffs had only a few short days to amend their pleading and were not able to proof-read it in order to file it on time. Plaintiffs will appeal.

More info:

Published by: Isabel Santamaria on Oct 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TIF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->