Cases 41 - 50 of 61
O'DIAH v. CORDRAY et al
as 1:2017cv00966
Plaintiff:
AROR ARK O'DIAH
Defendant:
RICHARD CORDRAY, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
ALLIED PROGRESS v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2017cv00686
Plaintiff:
ALLIED PROGRESS
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
JOHN DOE COMPANY v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU et al
as 1:2017cv00049
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE COMPANY
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU and RICHARD CORDRAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2016cv02434
Plaintiff:
CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
FRANK LLP v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2016cv02105
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Plaintiff:
FRANK LLP
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
ROBINSON v. LYNCH et al
as 1:2016mc01751
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL K. ROBINSON
Defendant:
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
INTEGRITY ADVANCE, LLC et al v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2016cv00872
Plaintiff:
INTEGRITY ADVANCE, LLC and JAMES R. CARNES
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
FRANK LLP v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2016cv00670
Plaintiff:
FRANK LLP
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00663
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 7703
WILLIAMS v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
as 1:2016cv00155
Plaintiff:
FLORINE M. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
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.
