Cases 41 - 50 of 116
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00357
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Cardenas v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
as 4:2018cv02827
Defendant:
Quicken Loans, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cardenas
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227
Mattson v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
as 3:2018cv00989
Plaintiff:
Erik Mattson
Defendant:
Quicken Loans, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
FILING ERROR
as 5:2018cv00515
Plaintiff:
HouseCanary, Inc.
Defendant:
Quicken Loans Inc., In-House Realty, LLC and One Reverse Mortgage, LLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets
HouseCanary, Inc. v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv01672
Plaintiff:
HouseCanary, Inc.
Defendant:
Quicken Loans Inc., In-House Realty, LLC and One Reverse Mortgage, LLC
Daniel Amador v. USDC-CAFR
as 18-71428
:
In re: DANIEL AMADOR
Petitioner:
DANIEL AMADOR
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO
Real Party In Interest:
QUICKEN LOANS INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00324
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
HouseCanary, Inc. v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv01672
Plaintiff:
HouseCanary, Inc.
Defendant:
Quicken Loans Inc. , One Reverse Mortgage, LLC and In-House Realty, LLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1836
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv01052
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Pagano et al v. Quicken Loans Inc.
as 3:2018cv00117
Plaintiff:
Jeanne Pagano and Dana Norris
Defendant:
Quicken Loans Inc.
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
