Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc. v. Johal et al
| Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc. |
| Sulakhan Johal and Jasvir Johal |
| 3:2024cv00433 |
| March 25, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 3/25/2024.(Maturo, F.) |
| Filing 2 Disclosure Statement by Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Mitsubishi HC Capital, Inc. for Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc.. (Tannenbaum, Richard) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jasvir Johal, Sulakhan Johal ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-7693871.), filed by Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits to Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tannenbaum, Richard) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Jasvir Johal, Sulakhan Johal. (Tannenbaum, Richard) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Freberg, B) |
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
