Cases 1 - 10 of 35
London v. River Rouge PD et al
as 2:2024cv10754
Plaintiff:
Randall Tremayne London
Defendant:
River Rouge PD, Barton Morris Law Firm and Wayne, County of
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00267
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Smith v. Rickel et al
as 2:2023cv12538
Plaintiff:
Michelle Smith
Defendant:
John M. Rickel, The Rickel law firm P.C. and Association Dues Assurance Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00926
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
HOP Plaintiffs v. Liblang et al
as 2:2023mc50768
Plaintiff:
HOP Plaintiffs
Defendant:
Dani K. Liblang and Liblang Law Firm
Dobronski v. Krause and Kinsman Law LLC et al
as 2:2023cv10541
Defendant:
Patricia Lynn Campbell, Joanna Bernadette Orcheln, Krause and Kinsman Law LLC Doing business as Kruase & Kinsman Law Firm Doing business as Krause and Kinsman Group, LLP and others
Plaintiff:
Mark W Dobronski
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00498
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Dobronski v. Keroles Enterprises LLC et al
as 2:2020cv12639
Defendant:
Keroles Enterprises LLC Doing business as United Asset Acceptance Doing business as UAA Law Firm and Mary Fouad Keroles
Plaintiff:
Mark W. Dobronski
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00098
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00908
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
