Blake v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 13-6433. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180525d77
Visitors: 20
Filed: May 24, 2018
Latest Update: May 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 65), and the defendants' response in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 72), and for the reasons discussed in the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for intervention of James Dudley and Samantha Dudley (Doc. No. 66), and defenda
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 65), and the defendants' response in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 72), and for the reasons discussed in the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for intervention of James Dudley and Samantha Dudley (Doc. No. 66), and defendan..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 65), and the defendants' response in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 72), and for the reasons discussed in the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for intervention of James Dudley and Samantha Dudley (Doc. No. 66), and defendants' response in opposition (Doc. No. 73), the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to file a reply (Doc. No. 77) is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
