Zamani et al v. BMO Harris Bank NA

Plaintiff: Donya Zamani and Navid Zamani
Defendant: BMO Harris Bank NA
Case Number: 2:2013cv00638
Filed: March 29, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: John W Sedwick
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Zamani et al v. BMO Harris Bank NA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Donya Zamani
Represented By: Aaron M Green(Designation Retained)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Navid Zamani
Represented By: Aaron M Green(Designation Retained)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BMO Harris Bank NA
Represented By: Daniel W Huitink(Designation Retained)
Represented By: Barbara J Dawson(Designation Retained)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.