No. 20-980

Veena Sharma v. Santander Bank

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights due-process federal-crime judicial-review preclusion standing statute-of-limitations summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-03-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-district-court-and-appeals-court-dismissal-is-sufficient-for-review

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ , 1. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim without issuing summons to Respondent, without any hearing, and without jury trial as requested by Petitioner is sufficient for review by the honorable United States Supreme Court. 2. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim on wrong/incorrect interpretation of Statue of Limitations (10 years) is sufficient for review by the honorable United States Superior Court. : 3. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim on grounds of Preclusion is sufficient for review by the honorable Untied States Supreme Court. y PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES PARTIES ; . 1. Veena Sharma ; 2. Santander Bank ; RELATED CASES 1. Veena Sharma v. Fidelity Investments (Civil Action No.: 19-12186-FDS)

Docket Entries

2021-03-29
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-12
Reply of petitioner Veena Sharma filed. (Distributed)
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-02-23
Brief of respondent Santander Bank in opposition filed.
2020-12-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2021)

Attorneys

Santander Bank
Patrick S. TraceyBowditch & Dewey, LLP, Respondent
Patrick S. TraceyBowditch & Dewey, LLP, Respondent
Veena Sharma
Veena Sharma — Petitioner
Veena Sharma — Petitioner