Cases 21 - 30 of 52
Hardney v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage et al
as 1:2014cv08486
Plaintiff:
Eugene Hardney
Defendant:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage, Ernest J. Codilis and Associates and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00329
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv06332
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00285
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Armstrong et al v. JP Morgan Chase et al
as 1:2014cv00878
Plaintiff:
Bryan Armstrong and Darice Armstrong
Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase Bank, City Of Chicago and Firefly Legal Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bayview Loan Servicing LLC et al v. Armstrong et al
as 1:2013cv06840
Defendant:
Bryan Armstrong, Darice Evans Armstrong, HSBC Bank Nevada, NA and others
Plaintiff:
Bayview Loan Servicing LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985
City of Chicago v. Armstrong et al
as 1:2013cv05727
Plaintiff:
City of Chicago
Defendant:
Bryan Armstrong, Darice Armstrong, Aegis Funding Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv02854
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv02629
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00343
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
