No. 22-169
Jay Lin, et ux. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure debt-collection due-process fair-debt-collection-practices-act fdcpa federal-court-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure judicial-ethics procedural-rules recusal
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2022-10-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the New Jersey District Court judge erred in circumventing his recusal by suspending FRCP R. 7.1
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED The case started as a falsely debt collection case in New Jersey State Courts with the New Jersey ) Court Judges accepted personal, private, and secretive Stipulation from Defendant to overlook Defendant’s violation of FDCPA. In the Federal FDCPA violation | case that Plaintiff brought against Defendants, the New | Jersey District Court judge circumvented his recusal by | suspending FRCP R. 7.1
Docket Entries
2022-10-17
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/14/2022.
2022-09-22
Waiver of right of respondent Parker McCay, P.A. to respond filed.
2022-09-16
Waiver of right of respondents M & T Bank, as successor by merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, s/h/a "Hudson City Bank," and M & T Bank to respond filed.
2022-06-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 23, 2022)
Attorneys
Jay Lin, et al.
Jay J. Lin — Petitioner
M & T Bank, as successor by merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, s/h/a "Hudson City Bank," and M & T Bank
James P. Berg — Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, Respondent
Parker McCay, P.A.
Andrew Christopher Sayles — Connell Foley, LLP, Respondent