Cases 1 - 10 of 234
US v. Omoruyi
as 24-1561
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
OSARETIN GODSPOWER OMORUYI, a/k/a Bright Nelson, a/k/a Nelson Bright
Interested Party:
TD BANK NA, CITIZENS BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and others
US v. Omoruyi
as 24-1562
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
OSAKPAMWAN HENRY OMORUYI, a/k/a Clifford Bernard, a/k/a Bernard Clifford
Interested Party:
TD BANK NA, CITIZENS BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and others
Magga v. Citizens Bank, N.A.
as 1:2024cv00218
Plaintiff:
Jamie Magga
Defendant:
Citizens Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Breach of Contract
Geiman v. S & R Corporation et al
as 1:2024cv11418
Plaintiff:
Gregory A. Geiman
Defendant:
S & R Corporation and Roger R. Ploof
Trustee:
Citizens Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1131 ERISA - Collection of Delinquent Trust Fun
JBC Golf, Inc. v. Citizens Bank, N.A.
as 1:2024cv10829
Plaintiff:
JBC Golf, Inc.
Defendant:
Citizens Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Trustees of Dennis Pines Condominium Trust of Dennis v. Patten et al
as 1:2024cv10808
Defendant:
Citizens Bank N.A., Edward T. Patten, Darlene K. Patten and others
Plaintiff:
Trustees of Dennis Pines Condominium Trust of Dennis
Counter Defendant:
Town of Dennis, Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2410 Quiet Title
Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Local Mortgage, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Citizens Bank, N.A.
Defendant:
Local Mortgage, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv40043
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00160
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
