Cases 71 - 80 of 163
City of Redwood City v. Bank of America , N.A. et al
as 3:2010cv02116
Plaintiff:
City of Redwood City
Defendant:
Bank of America , N.A., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., UBS AG and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco v. Bank of America , N.A. et al
as 3:2010cv02115
Plaintiff:
Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco
Defendant:
Bank of America , N.A., Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc., UBS AG and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
City of Richmond v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
as 3:2010cv02117
Plaintiff:
City of Richmond
Defendant:
Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., UBS AG and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
HENRY v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
as 1:2010mc00063
Plaintiff:
BRADFORD J. HENRY
Defendant:
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
United Jewish Communities, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
as 1:2010cv01289
Plaintiff:
United Jewish Communities, Inc.
Defendant:
Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Green v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
as 1:2010cv01176
Plaintiff:
Howard Watson Green, Jr.
Defendant:
Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Mayhew v. Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc, et al
as 10-1150
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DOUGLAS MAYHEW
Defendant - Appellee:
JENNIFER ROGERS, CHERRY CREEK MORTGAGE CO., INC., et al., NORA ZIEL and others
DARBY v. RAHMAN et al
as 2:2010cv01474
Plaintiff:
GLORIA DARBY
Defendant:
ABDUL RAHMAN, STOKES E. MOTT , WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
WHOLESALE REALTORS SUPPLY CO. v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
as 2:2010cv01090
Plaintiff:
WHOLESALE REALTORS SUPPLY CO.
Defendant:
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv20307
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
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.
