Benjamin Melendez et al v. Culture Cannabis Club et al
| BENJAMIN MELENDEZ, RANJEET PANNU and BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU |
| CULTURE CANNABIS CLUB, SKYBOX HOLDINGS 81, MAMMOTH LEGEND CONSULTING, INC., BLOOMSTONE, PROFICIENT PROFITS, TOMMY LE, JULIE LE, CHRISTINA DANGELO, DEVON JULIAN, CHRIS FRANCY and ANH TRAN |
| 2:2024cv02926 |
| April 10, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 10, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff BENJAMIN MELENDEZ, BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU, RANJEET PANNU, (Kang, John) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff BENJAMIN MELENDEZ, BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU, RANJEET PANNU. (Kang, John) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs BENJAMIN MELENDEZ, BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU, RANJEET PANNU. (Kang, John) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-37264554 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU, RANJEET PANNU, BENJAMIN MELENDEZ. (Attorney John C. Kang added to party BENJAMIN MELENDEZ(pty:pla), Attorney John C. Kang added to party BIKRAMJIT SINGH PANNU(pty:pla), Attorney John C. Kang added to party RANJEET PANNU(pty:pla))(Kang, John) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
