Third Circuit Other Statutes Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 299
SHEGIAN v. CHW GROUP INC.
as 2:2024cv05811
Plaintiff:
DEROUHE SHEGIAN
Defendant:
CHW GROUP INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
SHEGIAN v. SELECT HOME WARRANTY, LLC
as 2:2024cv05628
Plaintiff:
DEROUHE SHEGIAN
Defendant:
SELECT HOME WARRANTY, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Fulmer v. Doe et al
as 1:2024cv00718
Plaintiff:
Susan Fulmer
Defendant:
John Doe and Michelle I. Zatizabal
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
DURSO v. HIG GROUP INC
as 2:2024cv00582
Plaintiff:
JOHN DURSO
Defendant:
HIG GROUP INC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
LIM v. AMITY ONE DEBT RELIEF
as 2:2024cv04778
Plaintiff:
SYDNEY LIM
Defendant:
AMITY ONE DEBT RELIEF
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
SYDNEY LIM VS Amity Debt Relief
as 1:2024cv04778
Plaintiff:
SYDNEY LIM
Defendant:
Amity Debt Relief
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Wright v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00544
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Wright
Defendant:
Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
GARCIA v. SOUTH SHORE HYUNDAI
as 2:2024cv01305
Plaintiff:
WEIHARIK GARCIA
Defendant:
SOUTH SHORE HYUNDAI
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
CARDENAS v. CREDITORS RELIEF LLC
as 2:2024cv04214
Plaintiff:
ERICA CARDENAS
Defendant:
CREDITORS RELIEF LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Friel v. North Star Insurance Advisors, LLC
as 3:2024cv00481
Plaintiff:
Joseph Friel
Defendant:
North Star Insurance Advisors, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of 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.
