Cases 31 - 40 of 65
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv00188
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Gibbons v. The Green Law Firm, P.C.
as 2:2015cv00011
Plaintiff:
Stephen Gibbons
Defendant:
The Green Law Firm, P.C.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
FOH v. CHASE et al
as 1:2014cv00928
Plaintiff:
MUNJE BETTY FOH
Defendant:
MARGARET M. CHASE, MICHAEL C TALIERCIO, ROSSABI BLACK SLAUGHTER PA, ATTORNEYS AT LAW and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Douville v. Lexington Law Firm
as 1:2014cv00245
Plaintiff:
Roy Douville
Defendant:
Lexington Law Firm
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00422
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_claimant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Smith et al v. Chapman et al
as 3:2014cv00238
Plaintiff:
Douglas R. Smith, Mary Luczak-Smith, DRS Family Management, LLC and others
Defendant:
Avery Chapman, Taryn Hartnett, Chapman Legal Group doing business as Chapman Law Group, PLLC and others
Petitioner:
Brian Eberhard
Interested Party:
Laboratory Equipment Holdings, LLC and Physicians Choice Laboratory Services, LLC
Counter Claimant:
Chapman Legal Group
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
DEMADDIS v. BERNARDINI LAW, P.C.
as 1:2012cv01069
Plaintiff:
PENNY DEMADDIS
Defendant:
BERNARDINI LAW, P.C.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00612
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2012cv00217
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
MURRAY v. THE SIGMON LAW FIRM, P.A.
as 1:2012cv00824
Plaintiff:
CHRISTIPHER MURRAY
Defendant:
THE SIGMON LAW FIRM, P.A.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
