Cases 31 - 40 of 133
Carol Robling v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.
as 15-12143
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CAROL ROBLING
Defendant - Appellee:
ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. et al
as 1:2015cv00758
Defendant:
DANIEL M. FITZPATRICK, ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. and KEVIN M. MODANY
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Nottenkamper v. Modany et al
as 1:2015cv03390
Plaintiff:
Janice Nottenkamper
Defendant:
Kevin M. Modany , Daniel M. Fitzpatrick , John F. Cozzi and others
Movant:
Sasha Wilfred
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv02772
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2015cv00407
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Barton v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.
as 1:2015cv00630
Defendant:
ITT Educational Services, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Thomas Barton
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
LAWRENCE v. MODANY et al
as 1:2014cv02106
Defendant:
JOHN F. COZZI, JOHN E. DEAN, DANIEL M. FITZPATRICK and others
Plaintiff:
MICHELLE LAWRENCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
HENNEN v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. et al
as 1:2014cv01948
Defendant:
DANIEL M. FITZPATRICK, ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. and KEVIN M. MODANY
Plaintiff:
KRISTOPHER HENNEN
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv01709
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
JINDAL v. MODANY et al
as 1:2014cv01651
Defendant:
DANIEL M. FITZPATRICK, ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. and KEVIN M. MODANY
Plaintiff:
KUMUD JINDAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
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.
