AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

JAMES ALLAN HENNIS and SANDRA KAREN HARRIS PLAINTIFFS v. TRUSTMARK BANK, et al. DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

MICHAEL PARKER, Magistrate Judge

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion [26] to Deny Time Extension and Motion[28] for Default Judgment. Having reviewed the motions and the docket in this matter, the court finds that the motions are not well-taken and should be denied.

In [26], Plaintiff asks the court to deny Defendants Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC ("Advanced"), Advanta Bank Corp. ("Advanta"), Discover Bank and Discover Financial Services, LLC (collectively, "Discover"), Trustmark National Bank ("Trustmark"), GE Money Bank ("GE") and Belk an extension of time to answer the complaint. However, the court has already granted Discover's, Trustmark's, Advanced's and Advanta's separate motions [10] [12] [14] [16] for extension of time to answer. The other defendants (GE and Belk) have not requested an extension of time to answer, and their answers are not yet due. See Returns on Summonses [19]. Accordingly, this motion will be denied as moot.

In [28], Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against Defendants BMW Bank of NA, BMW Financial Services, Financial Services Remarketing Inc., BMW Card Services, HSBC Bank, GM Flex Card, Advanta, GE and Belk. However, not only do Plaintiffs provide no basis whatsoever for a default judgment, but the deadline for these Defendants to answer has not yet passed. Accordingly, this motion will be denied as premature.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion [26 [to Deny Time Extension and Motion[28] for Default Judgment are denied.

SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HENNIS v. TRUSTMARK BANK
(Mar 2, 2010)