Cases 21 - 30 of 100
Bennett v. US
as 25-1171
Defendant:
CIELO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., JACQUELINE STERN, Judge, JAMES JUDGE, Attorney and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES BENNETT and PAMELA BENNETT
James Bennett v. Suzanne Beckner et al
as 2:2024cv09310
Plaintiff:
James Bennett
Defendant:
Suzanne Beckner, John Shaw and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Dees v. Zurlo
as 24-1574
Plaintiff:
JENNIFER LYNN DEES and ETHAN DAVIS SMITH
Defendant:
JILLIAN KNOX, SAMUAL MAXWELL, EMILY WILLIAMS and others
Bennett et al v. Judge et al
as 4:2024cv00454
Plaintiff:
Pamela Bennett and James Bennett
Defendant:
James Judge, Does 1-10 (4:24-cv-00454-O) and The Judge Law Firm
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Dees et al v. Zurlo et al
as 1:2024cv00001
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Lynn Dees and Ethan Davis Smith
Defendant:
Michael Zurlo, Jeffrey R. Brown, Jillian Knox and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bennett v. US
as 24-1242
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAMELA BENNETT and JAMES BENNETT
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Jane Doe No. 1-13 v. Nygard et al
as 1:2023cv10306
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3 and others
Defendant:
Peter J Nygard, Nygard Inc., Nygard Holdings Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights
Bennett v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv01185
Plaintiff:
James Bennett
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Bennett et al v. The United States Of America, et al
as 3:2023cv01140
Plaintiff:
Pamela Bennett and James Bennett
Defendant:
The United States Of America (United States Federal Bureau Of Investigation- as one of the agencies of the United States), Michael Garland, Cynthia A. Freeland and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 fd Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
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.
