Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Lysa Daniels Tribe et al v. Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP et al
as 1:2024mi00038
Plaintiff:
Lysa Daniels Tribe and Alyssa Daniels
Defendant:
Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and M&T Bank, Legal Document Processing
Cause Of Action: 00 U.S.C. § 0000 No Cause Specified
Meikle v. M&T Bank et al
as 1:2020mi00002
Defendant:
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, M&T Bank, Fairway Mortgage Company and others
Plaintiff:
Karrick Meikle
Cause Of Action: 00 U.S.C. § 0000
FINKEL et al v. M&T BANK et al
as 0:2019cv61843
Defendant:
M&T BANK, BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, EQUIFAX INC. and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN CIVETTI and DONNA FINKEL
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Byrd et al v. M&T Bank Corporation et al
as 6:2018cv01809
Defendant:
M&T Bank Corporation, DeLuca Law Group PLLC and Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
Plaintiff:
Raymond L. Byrd and Belinda P. Byrd
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
M&T Bank v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 0:2018cv60819
Plaintiff:
M&T Bank
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Quintana v. M&T Bank Corporation
as 1:2016cv20422
Plaintiff:
Jose Quintana
Defendant:
M&T Bank Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Collelo v. M&T Bank Corporation
as 8:2016cv00225
Plaintiff:
Antoinette Collelo
Defendant:
M&T Bank Corporation
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
Stebe v. M&T Bank
as 2:2015cv14255
Defendant:
M&T Bank
Plaintiff:
Richard Stebe
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Martinez v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al
as 0:2015cv60677
Plaintiff:
Tam Marie Martinez
Defendant:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and M&T Bank Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Bresko v. M&T Bank Corporation
as 8:2013cv01243
Plaintiff:
Karen Ann Bresko
Defendant:
M&T Bank Corporation
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
