Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv10351
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv10352
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv10161
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Electronic Funds Transfer Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00967
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Gomez v. Morgan Stanley ETrade
as 26-2480
Plaintiff:
FELIPE NERY GOMEZ
Defendant:
MORGAN STANLEY ETRADE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Department of the Treasury, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Bankruptcy Section and others
Brieaddy v. Synchrony Bank et al
as 3:2026cv05053
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Brieaddy
Defendant:
Synchrony Bank and Client Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Gomez v. Morgan Stanley ETrade et al
as 1:2026cv10456
Plaintiff:
Felipe Nery Gomez
Defendant:
Morgan Stanley ETrade, Internal Revenue Service, Illinois Department of Revenue and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Interpleader Action
Romano v. Effertz et al
as 8:2026cv02472
Plaintiff:
Christine Romano
Defendant:
Dr. Katie Effertz individually doing business as Hormone Health Advantage and Synchrony Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv02014
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv10551
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
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.
