U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Cases 1 - 10 of 154,932
Bungie, Inc. v. Aimjunkies.com, et al.
as 24-6034
Defendant:
PHOENIX DIGITAL GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, DAVID SCHAEFER, an individual, JAMES MAY, an individual and others
Plaintiff:
BUNGIE, INC.
D.R., et al. v. County of Contra Costa, et al.
as 24-6031
Defendant:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, BRIAN S. STERN, MARCIE FRANICH and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN FREEMAN, D.R., a deceased minor by and through her successor in interest John Freeman and CRISTINA RAMIREZ
Carlisle v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.
as 24-6022
Defendant:
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation
Plaintiff:
TERESA CARLISLE, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated
Naumov v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, et al.
as 24-6020
Defendant:
CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, a Division of NewRez, H&H PREFERRED REAL ESTATE and others
Plaintiff:
VICTOR NAUMOV
Mark R. Kiesel Living Trust, et al. v. Hyde
as 24-6021
Defendant:
THOMAS HYDE
Plaintiff:
MARK R. KIESEL LIVING TRUST and MONTANA WOODS, LLC
Lux-Navarro, et al. v. Garland
as 24-6019
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
BELLA NORTENCIA CHAY-LUX, ASHLEY FERNANDA CHAY-LUX, NANCY LUX-NAVARRO and others
Young v. Solana Labs, Inc., et al.
as 24-6032
Defendant:
MULTICOIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, SOLANA LABS, INC. and KYLE SAMANI
Plaintiff:
MARK YOUNG
United States of America v. Hall
as 24-6027
Defendant:
DOMINIC EARL HALL
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States of America v. Contreras-Vergara
as 24-6033
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ANDREA DENISE CONTRERAS-VERGARA
Solorio-Salazar v. Garland
as 24-6023
Petitioner:
JOSE RAMON SOLORIO-SALAZAR
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
