Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Bank of New York Mellon v. Riley
as 21-40383
Plaintiff / Appellee:
The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York as Trustee for The Benefit of The Certificateholders of The CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-5, The Bank of New York as Trustee for The Benefit of The Certificateho
Defendant / Appellant:
Floyd Riley and Sonia Riley
Dan De La Cruz v. Bank of New York
as 20-50488
Defendant / Appellee:
BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee of the Certificateholders CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-9
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAN SERGIO DE LA CRUZ
Bank of New York Mellon v. Randip Grewal, et al
as 19-11172
Defendant / Appellant:
REGINALD PERKINS, PARVINDER GREWAL, and/or all occupants of 1211 Harbor Dune Ct, Irving, TX 75063 and RANDIP GREWAL
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, As trustee for registered holders of CWABS, Inc., asset-backed certificates, series 2007-12, formerly known as Bank of New York
Antwan Henry v. Ditech Financial, L.L.C., et al
as 19-20439
Defendant / Appellee:
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Inc. Assest-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-5, formerly known as Bank of New York, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, L.L.C. and DITECH FINANCIAL, L.L.C., formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C.
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANTWAN HENRY
Carolyn Dawson v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al
as 19-20224
Defendant / Appellee:
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-SD1, SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE, L.L.C. and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Incorporated, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-SD1
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CAROLYN R. DAWSON
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.
