Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv00928
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv03112
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv00911
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal- Fraud
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv07961
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv07697
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv07411
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06242
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
SENATORE BUILDERS v. ROTHMAN et al
as 3:2012cv04050
Plaintiff:
SENATORE BUILDERS
Defendant:
ROBERT E. ROTHMAN, ISADORE H. MAY, RICHARD J. PISCIOTTA, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
NICHOLAS v. INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES, LTD. et al
as 2:2008cv05142
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINE M. NICHOLAS
Defendant:
INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES, LTD., ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
KRUG et al v. APEX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
as 1:2008cv04862
Plaintiff:
DOLORES KRUG, MAUDE DECKER, MICHAEL KOBY and others
Defendant:
APEX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25, BEING FICTITIOUS NAMES OF UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WHO CONTROL THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES INVOKED BY APEX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
