SUMMONS + COMPLAINT January 27, 2021 (2024)

Preview
FILED: PUTNAM COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 500116/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF PUTNAM _____________________________________ ______ Plaintiff designates PUTNAM as County MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC the place of trial;the defendant resides in PUTNAM County PLAINTIFF, INDEX NUMBER: -AGAINST. PURCHASE DATE: S&S FILE NO. C597137 GINA LYNCH DEFENDANT. SUMMONS ____________________ _______________________ Plaintiff s address: 350 CAMINO DE LA RE1NA, STE 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 The Basis of the Venue isDefendant's Residence CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTION TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, ifthe complaint isnot served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiff s attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days afterthe service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the stateof New York); and in case of your failureto appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint, together with the costs of this action. Dated: January 26, 2021 Selip & Stylianou, LLP Attorneys forplaintiff P.O. Box 9004, 199 Crossways Park Dr., Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 364-6006 ext. 8991; (866) 848-8975 ext. 8991; TTY/TRS: (516) 422-8500 Refer to S&S File No. C597137 Defendant to be served: GINA LYNCH, 72 WILL WAY, CARMEL, NY 10512 This commimi^:tiGr. is from a debt collectar and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information ebtained will be used for that purpose. YOURS, ETC. Selip & Stylianou, LLP By: DAWD CO ESQ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!|!!!"!!!!!222!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlliii‡|iiiii|i!!!iiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 of 4 FILED: PUTNAM COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 500116/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF PUTNAM MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC PLAINTIFF, INDEX NUMBER: -AGAINST- S&S FILE NO. C597137 GINA LYNCH COMPLAINT DEFENDANT. _____________________________________ ____________ Plaintiff,by itsattorneys, complaining of the Defendant(s), respectfully alleges that: 1. Plaintiffisa foreigncorporation licensedto transactbusiness inNew York. 2. Upon information and belief,the Defendant(s) residesor has an officeinthe county inwhich thisaction is brought,or theDefendant(s) transacted business within the county inwhich thisaction is brought, eitherinperson or through an agent and the instantcause of action arose out ofsaid transaction. 3. Based upon a reasonable inquiry,the Statute of Limitations forthe cause of actionasserted herein has not expired. FACTS 4. Plaintiffspredecessor in interest,COMENITY CAPITA L BANK (hereinafter"Original Creditor"),offered to open a MY BJ'S PERKS MASTERCARD-branded account, account no. ending in 7614 (hereinafter the "Account"), in Defendant's name on Septerscr 08, 2018, subject to theterms and conditions provided, or made availablein electronicformat, to theDefendant (the "Agreement"). 5. Defendant accepted the offerby using the Account. 6. Defendant defaulted by failingto repay the Account balance. The Defendant's lastpayment was receivedon or about March 13, 2020 inthe amount of $100.00. 7. Demand forpayment of theAccount was made on Defendant, but Defendant failedto make allthe requiredpayments, and as a resultthe Account was charged off on May 31, 2020 inthe amount of $8,626.40. 8. The OriginalCreditor sold theAccount, including allright,titleand interestin and tothe outstanding balance owed by Defendant. Plaintiffpurchased the Account on or about June 18, 2020 and is now the owner and assignee of theAccount. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 9. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in theforegoing 2 of 4 FILED: PUTNAM COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 500116/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 paragraphs as ifmore fullysetforth herein. 10. As a resultof Defendant's breach of theAgrééñiéñt, and aftercrediting Defendant for all payments and credits,there is now due and owing by Defendant to Plaintiffthe sum of$8,626.40, no part of which has been paid despite due demand therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffdemands judgment against Defcñdant(s) inthe amount of $8,626.40 together with costs and disbursem*nts. The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that,to thebest of his/herknowledge, information, and belief, formed afteran inquiry reasonable under the circ*mstances, the presentation of thewithin ceniplaint and the contentions therein are not frivolousas defined in part130-1.1(c) of therules of theChief Administrator. Dated: JANUARY 26, 2021 YOURS, ETC. By: DAVID CO ESQ. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff 199 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 686-8991; (866) 848-8975 ext.8991; S&S File No. C597137 3 of 4 FILED: PUTNAM COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 500116/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF PUTNAM _________________________________________________ Midland Credit Management, Inc PLAINTIFF, -AGAINST- INDEX NUMBER: GINA LYNCH S&S FILE NO. C597137 DEFENDANT. _________________________________________________ NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by the filing of the accompanying documents with the County Clerk via the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF"), is subject to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section 202.5-bb of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that Section. Counsel and/or parties must either: 1) immediately record their representation within the e-filed matter on the Consent/Represent page in NYSCEF; or 2) file the Notice of Opt-Out form to claim one of the limited exemptions from mandatory e-filing (see below). Failure to record representation may result in an inability to receive electronic notice of any document filings. Claiming an exemption will require the exempt party to serve and be served with hard copy documents. Counsel and unrepresented parties who intend to participate in e-filing must first create a NYSCEF account and obtain a userID and password. For additional information about electronic filing, and to create a NYSCEF account, visitthe NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/efile or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center (phone: 646-386-3033; e-mail: efile@nycourts.gov; mailing address: 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007). Exemptions from mandatory e-filing (Section 202.5-bb(e)) are limited to: 1) attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the computer hardware and/or scanner and/or internet connection or that they lack (along with all employees subject to their direction) the operational knowledge to comply with e-filing requirements; and 2) parties who expect to represent themselves and who choose not to participate in e-filing. (Such parties are encouraged to visit www.nycourthelp.gov or contact the Help Center in the court where the action is pending.) Dated: January 26, 2021 Selip & S anou, LLP By: DAVID COHEN ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 9004, 199 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 686-8991; (800) 293-6006 ext. 8991; To: GINA LYNCH, 72 WILL WAY, CARMEL, NY 10512 4 of 4

Related Contentin Putnam County

Case

Velocity Investments, Llc v. Suzanne Bouari

Aug 19, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |501442/2024

Case

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Llc v. Ryan Bozsik

Aug 20, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |501449/2024

Case

Discover Bank v. Jennifer M Manzoeillo

Aug 23, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501472/2024

Case

Cavalry Spv I, Llc, As Assignee Of Citibank, N.A. v. Daniel Garcia

Apr 19, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |500703/2024

Case

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erin Mckeon Bell

Aug 17, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501435/2024

Case

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Dawn M Lanza

Aug 22, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501466/2024

Case

Discover Bank v. Kristen T Comilloni

Aug 17, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501436/2024

Case

Discover Bank v. Samantha Testa

Aug 21, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501454/2024

Case

Synchrony Bank v. Elvin Gutierrez

Aug 21, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |501455/2024

Ruling

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC vs MCFARLIN

Aug 22, 2024 |CVSW2301883

JEFFERSON CAPITAL MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENTCVSW2301883 SYSTEMS LLC VS BY JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMSMCFARLIN LLCTentative Ruling: Motion unopposed. Motion GRANTED. The court will sign theProposed Judgment.

Ruling

REUBEN FELAN HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS SCOTT WELLS

Aug 22, 2024 |6/18/2022 |24SMCV01802

Case Number: 24SMCV01802 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to receive a copy of the courts tentative.

Ruling

LVNV Funding LLC vs Leslie Farias

Aug 21, 2024 |23CV-03458

23CV-03458 LVNV Funding LLC v. Leslie FariasCourt TrialAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Brian L. McCabe Courtroom 8 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Mason Brawley Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trials Hon. Mason Brawley Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:30 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trial matters scheduled.

Ruling

Citibank N.A. vs Marcy Ellasy

Aug 21, 2024 |24CV-02455

24CV-02455 Sandra Esquivel v. Kim JohnsonReview of Case StatusAppearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appearremotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remoteappearance. Appear to address the status of this Petition for Writ of Mandate.

Ruling

Discover Bank vs. Hagler-Mabry

Aug 23, 2024 |24CVG-00462

DISCOVER BANK VS. HAGLER-MABRYCase Number: 24CVG-00462Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons: Defendant Deborah Hagler-Mabrymoves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on thegrounds of improper service. Defendant argues that personal service was improper, because theprocess server “tossed” the summons and complaint on the porch outside of Defendant’s home.Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the process server’s return establishes a rebuttablepresumption of the facts stated in the return, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 647.Plaintiff has filed a verified return establishing a rebuttable presumption that Defendant waspersonally served on June 13, 2024. Defendant has not offered any admissible evidence to rebutthe presumption.Merits: “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improperservice of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effectiveservice.” Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413, (internal quotes omitted); seeLebel v. Mai (2012) 210 CA4th 1154, 1163. Delivering copies of the summons and complaint todefendant personally constitutes “personal service” of summons. CCP § 415.10. As long as theprocess server identifies himself or herself and tells the reluctant defendant that he or she is beingserved with process and leaves the papers as close as possible to the defendant, service is validnotwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 CA2d 257, 260.California Evidence Code section 647 provides that the return of a process server registeredpursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business andProfessions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden ofproducing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.Here, Plaintiff has provided a verified Proof of Service from a registered process server thatestablishes personal service of Defendant. The Summons and Complaint were delivered toDefendant at her home address on June 13, 2024. Defendant confirmed her identity to the processserver by nodding when named. Defendant tried to refuse service by closing the door. Thedocuments were left and seen by the Defendant. This constitutes valid personal service. Defendanthas failed to offer any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of the facts stated in theprocess server’s return as required by Evidence Code section 647. Service is valid and the Motionto Quash is DENIED. No proposed order has been lodged as required by Local Rule 5.17(D).Defendant shall prepare the order.

Ruling

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs SANTOS

Aug 25, 2024 |CVPS2402470

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings byCVPS2402470SANTOS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.Tentative Ruling: Granted.No opposition filed.Review of answer and amended answer does not dispute Plaintiff’s complaint.Plaintiff to file proposed judgment within 5 days of this order becoming final.Plaintiff to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.

Ruling

Aspire General Insurance Company vs. Allison

Aug 21, 2024 |22CVG-00899

ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ALLISONCase Number: 22CVG-00899This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The Court notes that Plaintiff has still not fileda Proof of Service of Summons. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed. The Court will issue an Orderto Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order toShow Cause will be on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is directed toprepare an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. The matter will also be calendared on Monday, November 4,2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of service. No appearance is necessary ontoday’s calendar.

Ruling

HAMILTON LAW, LTD. VS DANIEL ADAM SHRIVER

Aug 23, 2024 |23BBCV03023

Case Number: 23BBCV03023 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: NCB Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles North Central District Department B hamilton law, ltd., Plaintiff, v. daniel adam shriver, Defendant. Case No.: 23BBCV03023 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: demurrer; motion to strike BACKGROUND A. Allegations Plaintiff Hamilton Law, Ltd. (Plaintiff) alleges that on March 9, 2022, Defendant Daniel Adam Shriver (Defendant) requested Plaintiffs representation in an ongoing Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) trial where 2 days of testimony already transpired. Plaintiff alleges that though Defendant could not pay the retainer before representation, Defendant represented he would be receiving a large disability settlement soon. Plaintiff alleges that they entered into an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement for legal representation at $300/hour. Plaintiff alleges that it provided extensive legal services totaling 120 hours, but Defendant did not pay the agreed retainer or any subsequent invoices. The total bill is alleged to be in the amount of $38,715. Plaintiff alleges that it was willing to let Defendant go with a retainer deposit amount of $4,000, plus $1,902 in costs, but Defendant refused to make payments. The first amended complaint (FAC), filed January 10, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) promissory estoppel; and (4) fraud/misrepresentation. ON June 14, 2024, Defendant (a self-represented litigant) filed a General Denial. B. Motion on Calendar On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a demurrer and motion to strike in one document. The motions are directed against Defendants answer. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. DISCUSSION Plaintiff demurs to Defendants answer and each affirmative defense on the ground that they fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a defense. Plaintiff also moves to strike the 620 pages of documents attached to the answer on the grounds that they constitute irrelevant and improper materials and are redundant. Defendants one-page answer is on the form PLD-050 and is handwritten. His affirmative defenses include: (1) terms of the contract were not met; (2) failed to provide effective counsel; (3) failed to prepare for court; (4) failed to provide professional services; (5) failed to provide signed contract; (6) failed to file paperwork in a timely fashion; (7) made false and misleading statements; (8) inflated bill fraudulently claiming work accomplished; (9) revealed confidential information; (10) failed to perform as described; (11) ineffective counsel; and (12) elder abuse. The form then states, See Exhibits A-T. Thereafter, 620 pages of attachments follow. Defendant fails to plead any ultimate facts to support how these defenses apply to bar Plaintiffs causes of action or absolve Defendant from liability. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384 [stating that answer must aver facts as carefully as new matter pursuant to CCP § 431.30(b) and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint].) The same pleading of ultimate facts rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is required as in pleading the complaint. (Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Rutter Guide (June 2023 Update) Ch. 6-C, § 6:459.) The answer must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint. (Id. [quoting FPI Development, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 384].) In general, any issue on which defendant bears the burden of proving at trial is new matter and must be specially pleaded in the answer. (Civ. Proc. Before Trial, supra, § 6:431.) Plaintiff may demur to an answer on the ground of insufficient pleading of defenses (CCP § 430.20). (Id., § 6:470.) The allegations of the answer do not allege sufficient facts. As summarized above, the affirmative defenses consist of a list of phrases, but have no supporting facts. As such, the demurrer to the answer is sustained. As this is Defendants first attempt at filing the answer, the Court will allow leave to amend. There are form books providing the ordinary wording of the concepts that Defendant is trying to advance. In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is taken off-calendar as moot. The mere fact that the 620-pages in documents are voluminous is not a sufficient ground to strike the exhibits. However, to the extent that documents are redundant and have been attached multiple times, Defendant should clean up the exhibits so that only relevant exhibits are provided. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff Hamilton Law, Ltd.s demurrer to the answer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. The motion to strike is taken off-calendar in light of the ruling on the demurrer. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order. DATED: August 23, 2024 ___________________________ John J. Kralik Judge of the Superior Court

Document

Unifund Ccr Llc v. Robert Bruzio

Dec 10, 2019 |Joseph J |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |502066/2019

Document

King'S Grant Master Association Inc., The Board Of Managers Of King'S Grant Condominium Ii v. Piotr Adamas, Aimee Adamas, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation As Trustee For The Benefit Of The Freddie Mac Seasoned Loans Structured Transaction Trust Series 2020-3, John Doe No. 1 Through John Doe No. 6 inclusive the names of the last 6 defendants being ficticious the true names of said defendants being unknown to plaintiffs the parties intended being those having or claiming an interest in possession of or lien upon the premises described in the complai

Jun 13, 2024 |Victor G. Grossman |Real Property - Other (Condo. lien foreclosure) |Real Property - Other (Condo. lien foreclosure) |501008/2024

Document

Lvnv Funding Llc v. Steven Diamond

Mar 08, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |500431/2024

Document

Capital One, N.A. v. Skirianos M Skirianos

Mar 26, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |500531/2024

Document

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mario E Guaillazaca

Feb 02, 2024 |Gina C. Capone |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |500204/2024

Document

Jun 13, 2024 |Victor G. Grossman |Real Property - Other (Condo. lien foreclosure) |Real Property - Other (Condo. lien foreclosure) |501008/2024

Document

Ford Motor Credit Company Llc v. Shawn Mcdonough

Jan 17, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |500091/2024

Document

Unifund Ccr Llc v. Robert Bruzio

Dec 10, 2019 |Joseph J |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |502066/2019