Cases 61 - 70 of 324
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv50346
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
KACHUR et al v. WMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION et al
as 3:2018cv15111
Defendant:
US BANK, N.A., ISSUING ENTITY TRUST J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST 2006-WMC4, DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE and others
Plaintiff:
MARY J. KACHUR and PETER J. KACHUR
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Wong et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al
as 2:2018cv02811
Defendant:
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and US Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff:
Robitah Mohd-Khatib and Chin King Wong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wong et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al
as 2:2018at01620
Defendant:
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., US Bank, N.A. and Does 1-50, Inclusive
Plaintiff:
Robitah Mohd-Khatib and Chin King Wong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Scholz et al v. Select Portfolio, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv00703
Plaintiff:
Paul F. Scholz and Lisa D. Scholz
Defendant:
Select Portfolio, Inc., US Bank, N.A. and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Flores v. Ginnie Mae et al
as 2:2018cv01865
Defendant:
Ginnie Mae, US Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and others
Plaintiff:
Leonard Flores
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Melody Chacker v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv06804
Plaintiff:
Melody Chacker
Defendant:
Wamu Mortgage, National Default Servicing Corp., Does 1 through 10 and others
Debroux v. US Bank N.A.
as 8:2018cv01637
Plaintiff:
Richard Debroux
Defendant:
US Bank N.A.
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
Richard W. Hill v. US Bank, N.A. et al
as 5:2018cv01455
Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., US Bank, N.A., National Default Servicing Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Richard W. Hill
Kevin Robinson et al v. US Bank, N.A.
as 5:2018cv01059
Plaintiff:
Angela Hooper and Kevin Robinson
Defendant:
US Bank, N.A.
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.
