Cases 51 - 60 of 95
Campbell v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. et al
as 0:2013cv60517
Plaintiff:
Taneike Y. Campbell
Defendant:
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. , Brian Charles Bowers , Mark J. Patin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Bowers v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
as 1:2013cv00186
Plaintiff:
Vincent D. Bowers
Defendant:
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Walker v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc et al
as 0:2013cv60230
Plaintiff:
Tamiko P. Walker
Defendant:
Financial Recovery Services, Inc , Brian Charles Bowers and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Bowers v. Webcollex, LLC d/b/a CKS Financial
as 1:2012cv00698
Plaintiff:
Vincent Bowers
Defendant:
Webcollex, LLC d/b/a CKS Financial
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Bowers v. EOS CCA
as 1:2012cv00543
Plaintiff:
Vincent Bowers
Defendant:
EOS CCA
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Bowers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc.
as 1:2012cv00535
Plaintiff:
Vincent Bowers
Defendant:
Synergetic Communication, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Bowers v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC
as 1:2012cv00507
Plaintiff:
Vincent Bowers
Defendant:
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
In re: Motor Fuel Temperature, et al
as 12-600
:
7-ELEVEN, INC., , and others
Petitioner:
CIRCLE K STORES, INC, KUM&GO, L.C., QUICKTRIP CORPORATION and others
Respondent:
3 GIRLS ENTERPRISES, INC., SAMANTHA BAYLARD, KENNETH BECKER and others
Raymond Bower v. Cellco Partnership
as 11-56574
Plaintiff - Appellee:
RAYMOND BOWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
Defendant - Appellant:
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DBA Verizon Wireless
Raymond Bower v. Cellco Partnership
as 11-56486
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAYMOND BOWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
Defendant - Appellee:
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DBA Verizon Wireless
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.
