Legal Opinion
Hingst v. Providian National Bank
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided December 15, 2000No. Civ.A. G-00-636PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
KENT, District Judge.
Plaintiff Rudy A. Hingst (“Hingst”) brings this action under state law and the Federal Fair Debt Collection. Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., against Defendant Providian National Bank (“Provi-dian”). Now before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Hingst filed suit against Providian in the County Court No. 2 of Galveston County, Texas on September 15, 2000, and served Providian with notice of suit on September 21, 2000. Providian answered…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- In Re BennettTexas Supreme Court · 1998
- BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. MillardTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Harold v. Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chapman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Ortiz v. Brownsville Independent School DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2003
- Landry v. Cross Country BankDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2003
- Rodriguez v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'nDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- Rodriguez v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'NDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.