Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01725
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1693 Electronic Funds Act
Smith v. NetSpend Corporation et al
as 2:2024cv00161
Plaintiff:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
NetSpend Corporation and Netspend Legal Dept
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05550
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Evans v. NetSpend Corporation
as 22-50310
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Delarick William Evans, Native American Global-Exchange, its Chief Executive Officer
Defendant / Appellee:
NetSpend Corporation, in their individual/official capacity, CEO/President Antonio and NetSpend San Antonio
Evans v. NetSpend Corporation
as 5:2022cv00028
Plaintiff:
Delarick William Evans
Defendant:
NetSpend Corporation in their individual/official capacity doing business as NetSpend San Antonio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Caldwell v. Netspend Corporation et al
as 4:2021cv00527
Plaintiff:
Johnny Ray Caldwell
Defendant:
Netspend Corporation, Legal Department, Customer Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Engel v. Netspend Mastercard
as 4:2021cv00516
Plaintiff:
Joseph Michael Devon Engel
Defendant:
Netspend Mastercard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Aldridge v. NetSpend Corporation
as 1:2019cv05210
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey L Aldridge
Defendant:
NetSpend Corporation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Netspend Corp et al
as 5:2015cv01801
Plaintiff:
Richard Rashad Jackson
Defendant:
Netspend Corp and LaKisha Taylor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. BOUWMAN et al
as 1:2013cv01059
Plaintiff:
THOMAS L. DAVIS
Defendant:
WENDELL BOUWMAN, NETSPEND and ACE CHECK CASHING CORP.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
