Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Carmen D. Stephens v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 11th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It affirms the district court's dismissal of a case filed by Carmen Stephens against CitiMortgage, Citibank, MERSCORP, and Phelan Hallinan & Jones for failure to contest the defendants' motions to dismiss. The per curiam opinion states that the district court dismissed the case on September 23, 2013 because the plaintiff did not file a response to the motions to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Carmen D. Stephens v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 11th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It affirms the district court's dismissal of a case filed by Carmen Stephens against CitiMortgage, Citibank, MERSCORP, and Phelan Hallinan & Jones for failure to contest the defendants' motions to dismiss. The per curiam opinion states that the district court dismissed the case on September 23, 2013 because the plaintiff did not file a response to the motions to dismiss.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-14497

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It affirms the district court's dismissal of a case filed by Carmen Stephens against CitiMortgage, Citibank, MERSCORP, and Phelan Hallinan & Jones for failure to contest the defendants' motions to dismiss. The per curiam opinion states that the district court dismissed the case on September 23, 2013 because the plaintiff did not file a response to the motions to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Carmen D. Stephens v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 11th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It affirms the district court's dismissal of a case filed by Carmen Stephens against CitiMortgage, Citibank, MERSCORP, and Phelan Hallinan & Jones for failure to contest the defendants' motions to dismiss. The per curiam opinion states that the district court dismissed the case on September 23, 2013 because the plaintiff did not file a response to the motions to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    Case: 13-14497

    Date Filed: 07/21/2014

    Page: 1 of 2

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-14497
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02463-JEC

    CARMEN D. STEPHENS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
    CITIBANK, N.A.,
    MERSCORP, INC.,
    (As successor by merger with Mortgage
    Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.),
    PHELAN HALLINAN & JONES, LLC,

    Defendants - Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (July 21, 2014)

    Case: 13-14497

    Date Filed: 07/21/2014

    Page: 2 of 2

    Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.


    PER CURIAM:
    We affirm the District Courts judgment of September 23, 2013, granting the
    defendants motions to dismiss because, as the District Court stated, plaintiff failed
    to file a response contesting the motions. Doc. 10.
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like