Marks et al v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff: Hope Guardianship Services, Inc. and Janine Marks
Defendant: Quicken Loans, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2012cv01867
Filed: July 30, 2012
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Mower
Referring Judge: Janie S. Mayeron
Presiding Judge: Susan Richard Nelson
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marks et al v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Hope Guardianship Services, Inc.
Represented By: Jan D Stuurmans
Represented By: David W Wick
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: Janine Marks
Represented By: David W Wick
Represented By: Jan D Stuurmans
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: Quicken Loans, Inc.
Represented By: Erin Davenport
Represented By: Michelle S Grant
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.