Cases 41 - 50 of 1,293
Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. v. Saclarides et al
as 1:2024cv00913
Plaintiff:
Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc.
Defendant:
Michael Saclarides and Devin Bryan
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00374
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00147
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Torio v. Cushman & Wakefield
as 24-134
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANDREW TORIO
Defendant / Appellee:
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, FATIMA MCKEON, Individually and DAWN SHORT-AUSTIN, Individually
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00012
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
MORGAN et al v. SZUKICS et al
as 2:2024cv00155
Plaintiff:
PETER J. MORGAN
Cross Defendant:
ROBIN WAKEFIELD
Defendant:
JOSEPH H. SZUKICS, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. L.P., MULTIFLOW LM, LLC and others
Other:
BRUCE TUNNELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
AMBROSE v. WAKEFIELD et al
as 2:2024cv00118
Petitioner:
JARON AMBROSE
Respondent:
CHAD WAKEFIELD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00038
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Daniel v. Wakefield & Associates LLC
as 6:2024cv00006
Plaintiff:
Darrell Daniel
Defendant:
Wakefield & Associates LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03449
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
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.
