Cases 31 - 40 of 102
Vorburger v. 329108 Owners Corp et al
as 1:2017cv06312
Defendant:
329108 Owners Corp, Martha Calhoun, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and others
Plaintiff:
Sophie Cahen Vorburger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
David B. Lee v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al
as 2:2017cv06788
Defendant:
ALAW, California Reconveyance Company, Does and others
Plaintiff:
David B Fee
Dawna Valentine v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
as 17-40710
Appellant:
DAWNA VALENTINE
Appellee:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Successor by Merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C., its Successors and Assigns
Dawna Valentine v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
as 17-40706
Appellant:
DAWNA MERYL VALENTINE
Appellee:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C., its Successors and Assigns
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00030
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00175
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00107
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Pompura v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association et al
as 4:2016mc02889
Plaintiff:
Shane M. Pompura
Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association and Chase Bank
Leatrice Johnson El, et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National, et al
as 16-2465
Defendant:
TROTT LAW, P.C., DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successors by assignment
Plaintiff:
LEATRICE Y. JOHNSON EL and KING MORPHEUS EL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2016cv02889
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
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.
