Alfanso Lee v. Natasha Hill et al

Plaintiff: Alfanso Lee
Defendant: Does and Natasha Hill
Case Number: 5:2017cv01959
Filed: September 26, 2017
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: David O. Carter
Referring Judge: Suzanne H. Segal
Nature of Suit: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 11, 2017 10 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION by Judge David O. Carter. Remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case number HEC1701618. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb)

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 this case: Alfanso Lee v. Natasha Hill et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Natasha Hill
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alfanso Lee
Represented By: Helen G Long
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?