Cases 1 - 10 of 154
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv60280
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Borrero Figueredo v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al
as 1:2023cv24156
Plaintiff:
Isdrey Borrero Figueredo
Defendant:
Executive Office for Immigration Review, David L Neal, U.S. Department of Justice and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0552 Freedom of Information Act
v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al
as 1:2023cv24155
Defendant:
Executive Office for Immigration Review, David L Neal, U.S. Department of Justice and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0552 Freedom of Information Act
Lambo v. Ardman et al
as 3:2023cv01153
Plaintiff:
Joshua Lambo
Defendant:
Neal Ardman and NIA Broadcasting, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0077 Securities Fraud
Jeske et al v. GlaxoSmithKline et al
as 9:2023cv81122
Plaintiff:
Joseph A. Jeske and Jan M. Jeske
Defendant:
GlaxoSmithKline, Pifzer, Sanofi and others
United States of America v. Neal et al
as 1:2023mc04008
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Roderick Dewayne Neal
Garnishee:
Commercial Jet Services, LLC
DOUGHERTY v. TOTSCH et al
as 2:2023cv14195
Plaintiff:
KEVIN DOUGHERTY
Defendant:
JOHN TOTSCH, RICHARD TOTSCH, TERRY RICHARS and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
DOUGHERTY v. TOTSCH et al
as 2:2023cv14193
Plaintiff:
KEVIN DOUGHERTY
Defendant:
JOHN TOTSCH, RICHARD TOTSCH, TERRY RICHARS and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Garrett v. O'Neal, Inc.
as 8:2023cv00552
Plaintiff:
Carla Garrett
Defendant:
Dyck O,Neal, Inc. and Dyck O'Neal, Inc.
Not Classified By Court:
Andrew C. Eckhoff
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.
