Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Katy Sullivan, Also Known As Katy Marie Sullivan v. Washington Mutual Bank

August 22, 2012

KATY SULLIVAN, ALSO KNOWN AS KATY MARIE SULLIVAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LASALLE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward M. Chen U.S. District Judge

Brian McCauley (CA Bar No. 66762) jbmapc@pacbell.net 2 J. BRIAN McCAULEY, Prof. Corp. 425 California Street, Suite 1700 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 974-1515 4 Fax: (415) 543-0125 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Katy Sullivan, aka Katy Marie Sullivan

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO APPEAR IN PERSON

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Court Conference Call: August 24, 2012; 11:30 a.m. Trial Date: None Action Filed: April 22, 2009 California Superior Court, San Francisco Case No.: CGC 09-487634

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

Plaintiff Katy Sullivan ("Plaintiff") hereby submits this Case Management Statement in 23 preparation for the Court's conference call on the status of a pending real estate sale, currently set for 24 Friday, August 24, 2012.

1. Jurisdiction and Service

Plaintiff has named the following as defendants: WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association,BANK OF AMERICA, National Association, LASALLE BANK, National Association, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

This court has jurisdiction, because Plaintiff, in the initial complaint, alleges violations of the 4 Federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). See, Complaint. 5 2. Status of the Case and Changes Since Previous Joint Statement: 6 Plaintiff seeks statutory damages under TILA, as well as general damages. Plaintiff also 7 seeks rescission under TILA. According to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to make certain disclosures 8 required under the TILA at the time the subject loan was issued to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends 9 that Defendants falsely represented the nature of the loan. Defendants deny these allegations and 10 contend that they did not participate in the lending process which is the subject of Plaintiff's legal 11 action.

B. Disclosures:

The parties have provided initial disclosures.

D. Discovery:

The Parties have accomplished only very limited discovery, which is currently stayed 16 pending efforts to sell half of the real estate in question and settle remaining issues; both parties plan 17 to conduct substantial discovery in the event that the settlement efforts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.