Brown v. Comenity Bank et al
| Felicia Brown |
| Comenity Bank and Comenity Principal Bank |
| 9:2020cv80069 |
| January 21, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Raag Singhal |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 21, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Comenity Bank. (mee) |
| Filing 3 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 1/21/2020 in the amount of $ 400.00, receipt number FLS900006742 (mee) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Raag Singhal. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (ar2) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Comenity Bank, Comenity Principal Bank. Filing fees $ 400.00, filed by Felicia Brown. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ar2) |
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 Florida Southern 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.
