Phuntsok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Defendant: Asset Acceptance, LLC and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff: Sonam D. Phuntsok
Case Number: 0:2014cv00356
Filed: February 7, 2014
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Anoka
Referring Judge: Tony N. Leung
Presiding Judge: Ann D. Montgomery
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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: Phuntsok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Asset Acceptance, LLC
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: Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Represented By: Gregory J Myers
Represented By: Brandy H Ranjan(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: Sonam D. Phuntsok
Represented By: John H Goolsby
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.