Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
6 opinions for “Sprague v. Flagstar Bank”
Papenfus v. Flagstar Bankcorp, Inc.public domain
517 F.Supp.2d 969 (2007) Kurt PAPENFUS, Plaintiff, v. FLAGSTAR BANKCORP, INC. and Hartford Life, Defendants. Civil No. 07-10925. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 18, 2007. *970 *971 George S. Shea, Brashear, Tangora, Livonia, MI, for Plaintiff. Kel
Kinder v. Northwestern Bankpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND REFERRING IN PART JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT PAUL L. MALONEY, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Court on a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class-Action Settlement. (Joint Mot. ECF No. 41.) The parties seek certification of the class for settlement purposes only and preliminary approval of the settlemen
Hyderi v. Washington Mutual Bank, FApublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FILIP, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Mohammed Hyderi and Niloufer Hyderi (“Plaintiffs”), who have a residential *393mortgage loan serviced by Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“Washington Mutual”), have sued Washington Mutual in this putative class action. Plaintiffs allege tha
Shirley Wood v. U.S. Bank, et al.public domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Shirley Wood v. Civil No. 1:22-cv-00235-JL Opinion No. 2023 DNH 070 U.S. Bank, et al. MEMORANDUM ORDER Borrower and pro se plaintiff Shirley Wood has filed suit against defendants U.S. Bank and U.S. Bank Home Mortgage1 (collectively, “
Barron v. Blue Cross Blue Shieldpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 7) PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 17) and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 18). The Court held a hearing on September 5, 2012
McCoo v. Denny's Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WAXSE, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 74). Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant Denny’s, Inc. (“Denny’s”) to answer Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production of Documents, Second Requests for Production of Documents, and First Interrogatories. With the exception of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories No