Escartin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff: Alma Aranda and Luis Escartin
Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Case Number: 3:2013cv00112
Filed: February 21, 2013
Court: North Carolina Western District Court
Office: Charlotte Office
County: Mecklenburg
Referring Judge: David S. Cayer
Presiding Judge: Max O. Cogburn
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: Diversity - Notice of Removal
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 North Carolina Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Escartin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alma Aranda
Represented By: R. Gregory Tomchin
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: Luis Escartin
Represented By: R. Gregory Tomchin
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: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Represented By: Julia Bright Hartley
Represented By: Thomas G. Hooper
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.