Czepa et al v. Lexington Roofing & Remodeling, Inc. et al
| James Czepa and Debra Czepa |
| Lexington Roofing & Remodeling, Inc. and Law Office of Richard M. Schultz, Ltd. |
| 0:2024cv04359 |
| December 3, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Nancy E Brasel |
| John F Docherty |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Law Office of Richard M. Schultz, Ltd., Lexington Roofing & Remodeling, Inc.. (MMG) |
| Filing 2 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Nancy E. Brasel per 3rd/4th Master list, referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. Please use case number 24-cv-4359 NEB/JFD.Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a #Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (MMG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Law Office of Richard M. Schultz, Ltd., Lexington Roofing & Remodeling, Inc. (filing fee $ 405, receipt number AMNDC-11518253) filed by James Czepa, Debra Czepa. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Czepa Ex. 1, #2 Czepa Ex. 2, #3 Czepa Ex. 3, #4 Czepa Ex. 4, #5 Czepa Ex. 5, #6 Czepa Ex. 6, #7 Czepa Ex. 7, #8 Czepa Ex. 8, #9 Czepa Ex. 9, #10 Civil Cover Sheet) (Supple, Ryan) Modified text on 12/3/2024 (kt). |
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 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.
