We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Fnbo V Arnold L Leer

Case Last Refreshed: 2 months ago

First National Bank Of Omaha, filed a(n) Breach of Contract - Commercial case represented by Bain, Wesley Harold, against Leer Jr Arnold Leslie, in the jurisdiction of Wayne County. This case was filed in Wayne County Superior Courts District.

Case Details for First National Bank Of Omaha v. Leer Jr Arnold Leslie

Filing Date

April 30, 2024

Category

Contract - Debt Collection

Last Refreshed

May 04, 2024

Practice Area

Commercial

Filing Location

Wayne County, IA

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filing Court House

District

Parties for First National Bank Of Omaha v. Leer Jr Arnold Leslie

Plaintiffs

First National Bank Of Omaha

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Bain, Wesley Harold

Defendants

Leer Jr Arnold Leslie

Case Events for First National Bank Of Omaha v. Leer Jr Arnold Leslie

Type Description
Docket Event VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
Docket Event PETITION FILED
Docket Event CIVIL ORIGINAL NOTICE
See all events

Related Content in Wayne County

Case

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INS CO VS NANCY BAUTISTA
Jul 09, 2024 | VAUDT JEANIE KUNKLE | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 05771 LACL159348

Case

HAUGE ASSOCIATES INC VS JESSICA HURD
Jul 10, 2024 | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 02351 LACV502160

Case

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC VS SHANNON SCHENK
Jul 09, 2024 | HUPPERT MICHAEL D | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 05771 LACL159351

Case

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC V. ROHRER
Jul 08, 2024 | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 03181 LACV027787

Case

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC V. SIMMONS
Jul 08, 2024 | VAUDT JEANIE KUNKLE | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 06571 LACV105214

Case

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION V. NATHAN J GILMORE
Jul 10, 2024 | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 02661 LACV016013

Case

DAVID GEISE V. L. THIES, LLC AND LEVI THIES
Jul 10, 2024 | CONTRACT-FRAUD MISREPRESENTATI | CONTRACT-FRAUD MISREPRESENTATI | 02811 LACV020369

Case

WELLS FARGO BANK NA VS CASWELL ANDREW F
Jul 11, 2024 | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 07701 LACV027471

Case

FNBO VS JORDAN M WATKINS
Jul 09, 2024 | ROSENBERG SCOTT D | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 05771 LACL159346

Ruling

Mariam Diarra vs Carson Kelly, et al
Jul 10, 2024 | 23CV02998
23CV02998 DIARRA v. KELLY et al MOTION FOR AN ORDER DECLARING CARSON KELLEY’S JUDGMENT DEBT TO MARIAM DIARRA TO BE A COMMUNITY PROPERTY DEBT The motion is denied without prejudice. Diarra obtained a default judgment against Carson Kelly and Humanize Global, US, Inc. in the amount of $40,718.24. The underlying complaint alleged Labor Code violations, breach of contract, promise without intent to perform, and violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Carson Kelly is alleged to be the managing agent of Humanize Global. Diarra worked for or was contracted by Carson Kelly and Humanize Global. Diarra, now as judgment creditor, moves the court to declare that the debt of Carson Kelly is a debt of the marital community of Carson Kelly and his wife Shannon Kelly, to declare the wages of Shannon Kelly be subject to garnishment to satisfy Diarra’s judgment against Carson Kelly, and to authorize that a writ of execution issue in her name. Family Code section 902 defines debt as “an obligation incurred by a married person before or during marriage, whether based on contract, tort, or otherwise.” Family Code section 910, subdivision (a) states that “[e]xcept as expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or the judgment for debt.” Page 3 of 4 Diarra has not made a sufficient showing in this motion as follows: 1. Evidence of a marriage between Shannon and Carson Kelly, including the date Carson and Shannon married. The only evidence are the vague statements from counsel and Diarra in their declarations. 2. Evidence that Humanize Global US, Inc. was community property, rather than the separate property of Carson Kelly. In light of the above deficiencies, the court need not reach the merits of the motion. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 4 of 4

Ruling

Maria Castilo vs. Fairfield Investor 1, LLC, a limited liability company et al
Jul 10, 2024 | CU23-03783
CU23-03783 Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel TENTATIVE RULING The Parties are to appear. Plaintiff’s Counsel is to update the Court on whether each of the Plaintiffs have been provided notice of the hearing date on July 12, 2024 for Defendant’s Motions to Compel Discovery. If notice has been provided, Plaintiffs’ Counsel is to submit proof to the Court. (The Court notes that in Plaintiffs Counsel’s declaration in support of motion the be relieved, Plaintiffs were only provided notice of the Case Management Conference date of June 26, 2024.)

Ruling

Maria Castilo vs. Fairfield Investor 1, LLC, a limited liability company et al
Jul 11, 2024 | CU23-03783
CU23-03783 Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel TENTATIVE RULING The Parties are to appear. Plaintiff’s Counsel is to update the Court on whether each of the Plaintiffs have been provided notice of the hearing date on July 12, 2024 for Defendant’s Motions to Compel Discovery. If notice has been provided, Plaintiffs’ Counsel is to submit proof to the Court. (The Court notes that in Plaintiffs Counsel’s declaration in support of motion the be relieved, Plaintiffs were only provided notice of the Case Management Conference date of June 26, 2024.)

Ruling

ISABEL KILROE VS FCA US, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION
Jul 16, 2024 | 23STCV10746
Case Number: 23STCV10746 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ISABEL KILROE, Plaintiff, vs. FCA US, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 23STCV10746 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2024 On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff Isabel Kilroe served 11 Requests For Production of Documents on Defendant FCA US LLC. On May 27, 2024, Defendant served responses, which stated that it will comply in full with RFP Nos. 1-8. On June 14, 2024 and May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants compliance with its responses about production. Defendant did not file an opposition. If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that partys statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) Defendants responses declaring that it would comply in full with RFP Nos. 1-8 were made on May 27, 2024, but Defendant still has not produced any documents. The unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce all responsive documents for RFP Nos. 1-8 within 30 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed only on Defendants counsel and not on Defendant itself. Defendants counsel is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $3,110.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 16th day of July 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

608 MATEO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARTS DISTRICT PATIENTS COLLECTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 12, 2024 | 20STCV36130
Case Number: 20STCV36130 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California ¿ County of Los Angeles ¿ Department 78 ¿ ¿ 608 MATEO, LLC , Plaintiff (s) , vs.¿ ARTS DISTRICT PATIENTS COLLECTIVE, INC. , et al., Defendant ( s ) .¿ Case No.:¿ 20STCV36130 (R/T 22STCV11290 ) Hearing Date:¿ July 12 , 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff 608 Mateo, LLC (Plaintiff) filed its First Amended Complaint against defendants Arts District Patients Collective, Inc. (ADPC) , James Shaw, Ryan Jennemann, THC Design , THC Design, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 for breach of written contract and breach of written guaranty arising from the leasing of the premises commonly known as 608 S. Mateo Street and 609 Imperial Street, Los Angeles, California. On June 17, 2024, the Court granted ADPCs ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motions to compel deposition appearance, initially scheduled for September 12, 2024, to July 12, 2024. (Min. Order, June 17, 2024.) ADPC moves to compel the depositions and production of documents of Plaintiffs person most knowledgeable (PMK) and of non-party David Muir (Muir) , in addition to seeking monetary sanctions . Plaintiff and Muir oppose the motion. As of July 5, 2024, no reply has been filed. II. DISCUSSION ¿ CCP § 2024.020 (a) provides , Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. Muir argues that the discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut off dates were January 9, 2023 and January 23, 2023, in reference to the declaration of Plaintiffs counsel Steven J. Revitz , made in opposition to ADPCs motion . As Plaintiffs counsel declares, trial was initially scheduled for March 22, 2022 at the Case Management Conference. (Min. Order, Jan. 29, 2021). At the June 1, 2023 Trial Setting Conference , trial was scheduled for July 22, 2024. (Min. Order, June 1, 2023.) The order did not expressly provide that trial related deadlines would be continued to the new trial date. ( Ibid .) I t should be noted that this case matter was recently reassigned as of July 5, 2024 . According to this Courts review of the docket, there is some ambiguity as to whether discovery related deadlines were intended to run with the new trial date, considering there were other discovery motions heard after the initial trial date. For example, the last motion concerning discovery was Plaintiffs motion to deem request for admissions admitted against defendant Jennemann, heard on December 13, 2023. If this Court were to accept Plaintiffs counsels declaration as true that discovery and motion cut-off dates were actually January 9 , 2023 and January 23, 2023, then it would not be feasible for Plaintiffs discovery motion to have been heard after those dates. This Court can only conclude, as a matter of practicality, that the trial related deadlines were intended to be continued with the setting of the current trial date of July 22, 2024 at the Trial Setting Conference . Nonetheless, ADPCs discovery motions are untimely. The issue is not that the motions were brought after the motion cut-off deadline, since ADPCs ex parte application to advance the hearing on the motions were granted . J ust because the right to be heard has passed does not mean that the Court has no power or errs in hearing it. ( Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Prod., Inc . (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1586 ( Pelton-Shepherd) .) The issue is that ADPC has delayed in seeking these depositions , and discovery is closed at this juncture . ADPC has been a party to this action since January 3, 2022 . According to Plaintiffs counsel, ADPC initially noticed in December 2022 for January 2023 the deposition of Plaintiffs PMK, Brian Rosenblum (Rosenblum). Rosenblum was prepared to appear for his deposition on January 17, 2023, but ADPCs counsel cancelled the deposition on January 16, 2023. ( Revitz Decl. ¶ 12.) Over one year later, ADPC noticed Rosenblums deposition on May 30, 2024 and June 10, 202 4, close to the discovery cut-off deadline based on the current trial date , and waited until May 21, 2024 to serve a deposition subpoena on non-party Muir. Setting aside issues of proper service and objections to the deposition notices , as raised in the oppositions, the issue is that even if the Court were inclined to grant ADPCs motions, ADPC has run afoul of the discovery cut-off date such that this Court must make a determination as to whether discovery should be reopened for the purpose of allowing the belated depositions. A s previously discussed , ADPC has not demonstrated any diligence in conducting discovery, nor has ADPC filed any motion for leave to reopen discovery. ( See Pelton-Shepherd , supra , 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1586 [ Trial court could not hear and grant plaintiff's belated motion to compel discovery without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose; plaintiff failed to file any motion for leave to reopen discovery so that motion to compel could be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date, and there was no indication that the court considered any of the matters relevant to whether discovery should have been reopened for the hearing of the motion to compel, including but not limited to the reasons for the discovery and plaintiff's diligence or lack of diligence in seeking those documents and in seeking a hearing on its motion to compel. ].) III . CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, ADPCs motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs PMK and to compel the deposition of Muir are DENIED . The Court declines Plaintiffs and Muirs request for monetary sanctions against ADPC. Moving Party is ordered to give notice . DATED: July 11 , 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim ¿ Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting . " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Ruling

PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING, A DELAWARE VS. ASURE PAYROLL TAX MANAGEMENT LLC, A DELAWARE LLC ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 | CGC24615613
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING's Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 1:30 p.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

Ruling

FISCUS vs. PATTERSON, et al.
Jul 10, 2024 | CVCV22-0199210
FISCUS VS. PATTERSON, ET AL. Case Number: CVCV22-0199210 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Continue Trial Date: This matter involves multiple parties and Cross- Complaints. Plaintiff is Paula Fiscus. Defendant/Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants Gregory G. Gonzales and Marcia J. Gonzales, Trustees of the Greg and Marcia Gonzales Family 2014 Revocable Trust will be referred to as the Gonzales Defendants. James Patterson and Patterson Landscape/Yard Manicurist Agency will be referred to as the Patterson Defendants. The Gonzales Defendants have filed a Motion to Continue the presently set August 20, 2024, trial date. The Patterson Defendants have joined the motion. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company has not filed anything related to the motion and did not attend the ex parte hearing on June 27, 2024, at which time was shortened to hear the motion today instead of July 22, 2024, as originally noticed. There is no evidence that the Gonzales Defendants provided notice of today’s hearing to Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company. Cross-Defendant Mark Behnke Construction has also not filed anything related to the motion but did attend the ex parte hearing and is therefore aware of today’s hearing. Merits. “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC 3.1332(a). “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” CRC 3.1332(c). Circumstances that may indicate good cause are: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. CRC 3.1332(c). When considering whether to grant a motion to continue, there are several factors that the Court must consider including: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. CRC 3.1332(d). The reasons presented by the Gonzales Defendants to continue the trial are that trial counsel has a conflicting trial schedule and because Marcia Gonzales’s son is getting married the week of trial. In the moving papers, the Gonzales Defendants note that the wedding date was set prior to the Court setting the Augst 20, 2024 trial date. The reasons for the Patterson Defendants joining the motion are because counsel has a conflicting trial schedule, counsel is moving homes in late August, and because the Pattersons have a prepaid vacation from August 26- September 6, 2024. It is not clear whether the Pattersons’ vacation was set and prepaid when the Court set the trial date of if the Pattersons planned it after the trial date was set. Plaintiff opposes the continuance on the grounds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for the continuance, and because Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a continuance. The prejudice alleged is that a later trial would not allow time for necessary remediation of the landscaping issues before the next rainy reason. These issues have resulted in significant erosion and flooding. Plaintiff also argues that the parties stipulated to the August 20, 2024, trial date and all agreed that no further continuances would be granted absent stipulation. While this agreement did not make it into the Court’s Order dated April 10, 2024 (which was submitted by the Patterson Defendants), it is clear from the Stipulation that the parties did reach such a stipulation. Conflicting trial schedules do not automatically create good cause to continue a trial. Trial counsel regularly have multiple trials set for the same week. Any attorney who practices in civil law is well aware that not every trial set actually goes forward as scheduled. No good cause has been presented in that regard. As to the wedding, it appears the counsel for the Gonzales Defendants did not check with their client prior to agreeing to a trial date. Had they checked, surely Ms. Gonzales would have pointed out that her son was getting married that week. The unavailability of Ms. Gonzales due to her son’s wedding may constitute an excusable circumstance under CRC 3.1332(c)(2). Similarly, the Patterson’s vacation could also be such a circumstance, depending on when it was scheduled. Regarding the CRC 3.1332(d) factors, the trial date is one month and twelve days away. Trial has been continued twice before. The first was by stipulation on October 13, 2022. The second was by stipulation on April 9, 2024, as discussed above. The Gonzales Defendants have requested a continuance to November of 2024 while the Patterson Defendants have requested 45-60 days. The only alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance would be potentially taking witnesses out of order at trial. Plaintiff may be prejudiced by the continuance. The matter is not entitled to preferential trial setting. Regarding the Court’s calendar, one of the two civil trial courts will be dark on the currently set date of August 20, 2024, which reduces the chance that this matter will be assigned to a courtroom for trial. Counsel is not currently engaged in another trial that causes a conflict and only provides evidence that there are other trials that might affect counsel’s availability. There is no stipulation for a continuance. The parties previously agreed that no further continuances would occur absent a stipulation. Regarding the interests of justice, the Court is in a position of having to weigh how much counsel’s failure to consult with their clients regarding their schedules should be permitted to affect their client on a personal level. It is clear that counsel should have done a better job to make sure that the agreed upon trial date worked for all parties, and not just counsel. This is particularly so when the parties explicitly stipulated that no further continuances would take place. However, the Court does not feel that it is in the interest of justice to punish Ms. Gonzales by potentially preventing her from participating in her son’s wedding based on counsel’s failure to communicate properly. As to the Patterson vacation, it is unclear whether this vacation was set at the time the trial was set or if the Pattersons scheduled their vacation later. However, the Court does understand the need for the Pattersons to be present for the trial to present their testimony. On balance, the Court finds that granting of a short continuance would be in the interest of justice. The Pattersons’ vacation lasts until September 6, 2024. Therefore, the Court intends to continue the trial to Tuesday, September 10, 2024. If this trial date does not work for Plaintiff, the Court will entertain the first available date for Plaintiff. Should the trial be continued, all discovery deadlines will flow from the new trial date. However, the Court notes that Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company was not provided with notice of today’s hearing. Absent an appearance by Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company, the Court will continue today’s hearing to July 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63 as that is the date that was originally noticed.

Ruling

Richard Bartel vs Chicago Title Insurance Company
Jul 14, 2024 | 16CV02814
16CV02814 BARTEL v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF BARTEL’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Given the parties representation that they are finalizing a stipulation, no tentative will be posted. Page 3 of 3

Document

Bentley Estates Townhome Association, Inc. VS Kristin Chambliss
Mar 13, 2024 | Dear Jackson, LaTisha | Contract | 24CV3168

Document

KS StateBank, et al vs. You & Me Trucking LLC, et al
Jun 06, 2024 | CV Other Contract | SG-2024-CV-001140

Document

FP OMNI TECHNOLOGIES INC vs TSYS ACQUIRING SOLUTIONS LLC
Feb 28, 2022 | Hamil, R. Timothy | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 22-A-01537-8

Document

LANTERN WALK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC vs SMITH
Apr 17, 2024 | Adkins, Tamela L. | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 24-A-03473-4

Document

GEORGIA EARTH & PIPE LLC vs TOTHEROW ENTERPRISES LLC
Aug 03, 2023 | Davis, Warren | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 23-A-06642-10

Document

STILLWATER PLANTATION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC vs MITCHELL et al
May 10, 2024 | Hamil, R. Timothy | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 24-A-04190-8