US District Court for the District of Columbia Contract Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 67
ABBAS v. BUNDERSREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND et al
as 1:2015cv00332
Plaintiff:
HASSAN A. ABBAS
Defendant:
BUNDERSREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PHELAN et al v. VANDENHANDEL
as 1:2014cv01501
Defendant:
BRADLEY JAY VANDENHANDEL, SR.
Plaintiff:
GERARD PHELAN and JAMES PHELAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CERVERA v. CHEUNG
as 1:2014cv01487
Plaintiff:
XAVIER CERVERA
Defendant:
MICHAEL CHEUNG
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 1819
CEVERA V. NIMMO
as 1:2014cv01488
Plaintiff:
XAVIER CERVERA
Defendant:
WILLIAM J. NIMMO
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 1819
CIT SMALL BUSINESS LENDING CORP. v. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING/R.I. INC. et al
as 1:2014cv00149
Plaintiff:
CIT SMALL BUSINESS LENDING CORP.
Defendant:
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING/R.I. INC. and SYSTEMS ENGINEERING N.Y.A. INC.
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 1819
PHELAN et al v. VANDENHANDEL et al
as 1:2013cv01298
Plaintiff:
GERARD PHELAN and JAMES PHELAN
Defendant:
LARRY WAYNE VANDENHANDEL and BRADLEY JAY VANDENHANDEL, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
ADDUCI v. KRANE
as 1:2013cv01104
Plaintiff:
V. JAMES ADDUCI, II
Defendant:
LEONARD W KRANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WALKER & COMPANY L.L.P.
as 1:2013cv00882
Plaintiff:
COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Defendant:
WALKER & COMPANY L.L.P.
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY v. RAPPAPORT et al
as 1:2013cv00510
Plaintiff:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
Defendant:
JAMES W. RAPPAPORT and ROBERT E. RUMMLER, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $12,557.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
as 1:2013cv00235
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
$12,557.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 981
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
