Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HILL v. FLAGSTAR BANK, 12-2770. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20140627d11 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER BERLE M. SCHILLER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 26 th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion of Defendants Flagstar Bank, FSB and Flagstar Reinsurance Company ("Flagstar") for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Consolidation Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and Flagstar's reply, and for the reasons provided in this Court's Memorandum dated June 26, 2014, it is he
More

ORDER

BERLE M. SCHILLER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion of Defendants Flagstar Bank, FSB and Flagstar Reinsurance Company ("Flagstar") for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Consolidation Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and Flagstar's reply, and for the reasons provided in this Court's Memorandum dated June 26, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Genworth's motion (Document No. 94) is GRANTED. 2. Flagstar's motion (Document No. 98) is GRANTED. 3. Genworth's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in Submitting its Reply in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 114) is DENIED as moot.1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiffs filed a response to this motion, arguing that Genworth's proposed reply brief exceeded the Court's page limits. The Court has sufficient briefing to decide Genworth's summary judgment motion without a reply brief. The Court did not consider Genworth's proposed reply brief in reaching its decision.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer