NGUYEN v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN et al
| TONY NGUYEN |
| DOES 1-10, LAW OFFICES OF HOANG HUY TU THIEN TRAN, BICH AN NGUYEN, ATIR MANASTRA, MOHAMED MANASTRA, LAW OFFICES OF ANSWER W. WEISS, NGOC BICH NGUYEN, HAI TRUNG HOANG and ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN |
| 1:2021cv00267 |
| January 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Royce C Lamberth |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT against Law Offices of Andrew Weiss by TONY NGUYEN. (zjf) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interest of Parties by TONY NGUYEN (zjf) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for CM/ECF Password by TONY NGUYEN. (zjf) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against DOES 1-10, HAI TRUNG HOANG, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, LAW OFFICES OF ANSWER W. WEISS, LAW OFFICES OF HOANG HUY TU THIEN TRAN, ATIR MANASTRA, MOHAMED MANASTRA, BICH AN NGUYEN, NGOC BICH NGUYEN ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 4616104964) with Jury Demand filed by TONY NGUYEN. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(zjf) Modified on 2/3/2021 to add Receipt Information (eg). |
| Summons (9) Issued as to HAI TRUNG HOANG, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, LAW OFFICES OF ANSWER W. WEISS, LAW OFFICES OF HOANG HUY TU THIEN TRAN, ATIR MANASTRA, MOHAMED MANASTRA, BICH AN NGUYEN, NGOC BICH NGUYEN. (zjf) |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
