Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Lase Guaranty Trust v. Bammann et al
as 1:2022cv01331
Plaintiff:
Lase Guaranty Trust
Defendant:
Linda B Bammann, Stephen B Burke, Todd Anthony Combs and others
THE ESTATE OF DANNY VALENTINE-SHABAZZ v. FLYNN et al
as 2:2022cv00866
Plaintiff:
THE ESTATE OF DANNY VALENTINE-SHABAZZ
Defendant:
JEFF FLYNN, ROBERT BUCCINI, CHRIS BRUCE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Monica Rene Hall v. James Jamie Dimon
as 2:2016cv06907
Defendant:
James Jamie Dimon
Plaintiff:
I, Man David Hall, Jr and I, Woman Monica Rene Hall
Turner v. Dimon et al
as 4:2016cv00609
Plaintiff:
Vernon Lamont Turner
Defendant:
Jamie Dimon, Marianne Lake, William Scudder and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cheng et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
as 2:2015cv04308
Plaintiff:
Ting-Wai Cheng and Chau-Ping Yau
Defendant:
Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Williams v. Chase Bank et al
as 2:2015cv10565
Defendant:
Chase Bank , JP Morgan Chase , Jamie Dimon and others
Plaintiff:
Stephanie Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Ratcliff v. Dimon et al
as 2:2014cv00062
Plaintiff:
Richard Ratcliff
Defendant:
Jamie Dimon, James A. Bell , Crandall C Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Maresh v. Insight Financial Corporation
as 1:2013cv00829
Plaintiff:
Nancy M. Maresh
Defendant:
Insight Financial Corporation, David H. Schell, David (I) H. Schell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Lemus v. Chase Bank et al
as 2:2011mc02019
Plaintiff:
Marta Lemus
Defendant:
Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 00 U.S.C. § 0000
Austin v. Chase Card Services et al
as 1:2012mc00026
Plaintiff:
Mark E Austin
Defendant:
Chase Card Services, JP Morgan Chase & Company and Jamie Dimon
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
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.
