Cases 11 - 20 of 28
Chase Bank USA NA v. Laura Hess, et al
as 16-2201
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHASE BANK USA NA
Defendant - Appellee:
LAURA L. HESS, CONSUMER LAW CENTER OF DELRAY BEACH LLC, ERIC SIVERSEN and others
Defendant - Appellant:
EDWARD CHERRY, a/k/a EDWARD T. KENNEDY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-1318
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
In re Chase Bank USA NA
as 1:2014mc00077
Movant:
Chase Bank USA NA
Respondent:
Timothy Lawrence
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash
Wright v. Cellco Partnership et al
as 1:2014cv00008
Plaintiff:
Errick M. Wright
Defendant:
Cellco Partnership, Alexis Eon, Diversified Consultants Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Chase Bank USA NA v. Laura Hess, et al
as 13-4301
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHASE BANK USA NA
Defendant - Appellant:
LAURA L. HESS
Defendant:
CONSUMER LAW CENTER OF DELRAY BEACH LLC and CONSUMER LAW CENTER OF BOCA RATON INC
Defendant - Appellee:
EDWARD CHERRY, a/k/a Edward T. Kelly, ERIC SIVERSEN, HOME PLATE CONSULTANTS LLC and others
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MCCAULEY et al
as 3:2012cv01555
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
MARGARET MCCAULEY, MARY C. SUNCHUK, JAMES MCCAULEY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Patricia Handley v. Chase Bank USA NA, et al
as 11-3568
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICIA A. HANDLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
CHASE BANK USA NA and REED SMITH
Patricia Handley v. Chase Bank USA NA, et al
as 11-3569
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICIA A. HANDLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
CHASE BANK USA NA, a/k/a BANK ONE CORP. and CITIBANK NA, (SOUTH DAKOTA)
HANDLEY v. CHASE BANK USA, NA et al
as 2:2011cv02904
Plaintiff:
PATRICIA A. HANDLEY
Defendant:
CHASE BANK USA, NA and REED SMITH LLP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 10-2224
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
