Cases 21 - 30 of 39
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv17020
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692
Michael Harrison v. Theodore Harrison, et al
as 21-2521
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL HARRISON
Defendant / Appellee:
THEODORE HARRISON, RONALD ALAN UNGER, MICHAEL KRASSENSTEIN and others
Berroteran v. CIT Group Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv00038
Defendant:
Dorene C. Dominguez, FC Merger Subsidiary IX, Inc., William M. Freeman and others
Plaintiff:
Aaron Berroteran
STRICKLAND v. CIT GROUP INC. et al
as 2:2021cv00696
Defendant:
MICHAEL A CARPENTER, WILLIAM M FREEMAN, R BRAD OATES and others
Plaintiff:
SHAWN STRICKLAND
KONDER v. CIT GROUP INC. et al
as 2:2020cv18449
Defendant:
DORENE C. DOMINGUEZ, WILLIAM M. FREEMAN, KHANH T. TRAN and others
Plaintiff:
ZOLTAN KONDER
Thomas v. CIT Group Inc. et al.
as 1:2020cv01641
Defendant:
Dorene C. Dominguez, FC Merger Subsidiary IX, Inc., William M. Freeman and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Thomas
RHODA v. CIT GROUP INC. et al
as 2:2020cv17547
Defendant:
DORENE C. DOMINGUEZ, R. BRAD OATES, WILLIAM M. FREEMAN and others
Plaintiff:
BRENT RHODA
Ordonez v. CIT Group Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv01586
Defendant:
Dorene C. Dominguez, FC Merger Subsidiary IX, Inc., William M. Freeman and others
Plaintiff:
Blake Ordonez
Michael Harrison v. Theodore Harrison, et al
as 20-2420
Defendant:
MICHAEL KRASSENSTEIN and RONALD ALAN UNGER
Defendant / Appellee:
KRASSENSTEIN & UNGER LLC
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MICHAEL HARRISON
Defendant / Appellant:
THEODORE HARRISON
Hollie Adams, et al v. Teamsters Union Local 429, et al
as 20-1824
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HOLLIE ADAMS, JODY WEABER, KAREN UNGER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES M. DARBY, Chairman, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA, ROBERT H. SHOOP, JR., Member, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in their official capacities and others
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.
