Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Cases filed in the Second Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2023cv09605
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Superb Motors Inc. et al v. Deo et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv06188
Plaintiff: Superb Motors Inc., Team Auto Sales LLC, Robert Anthony Urrutia and others
Defendant: Anthony Deo, Sarah Deo, Harry Thomasson and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Government Employees Insurance v. SMK Pharmacy Corp.
as 22-446
Plaintiff / Appellee: Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Defendant: Alexander Burlak, Marc Kassman, Kim Volman and others
Defendant / Appellant: SMK Pharmacy Corp., DBA Nature's First Long Term Care and Compounding
Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. Northern Physical Therapy, Chiropractic, & Acupuncture, PLLC et al
as 1:2022cv00568
Plaintiff: Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Defendant: Northern Physical Therapy, Chiropractic, & Acupuncture, PLLC, Sangwoo Mah, D.C., Seung-Hyuk Choi, P.T. and others
Not Classified By Court: David P Horowitz
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. SMK Pharmacy Corp. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2021cv03247
Defendant: John Doe Nos. "1" through "5", Simon Field, Kim Volman and others
Plaintiff: GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings
as 21-1007
Plaintiff: Melissa Thompson, Nannette Klatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sara Ann Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA Sarah Ann Masse and others
Defendant / Appellee: Nancy Ashbrooke, Richard Koenigsberg, Miramax Film NY, LLC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant: Larissa Gomes, Melissa Sagemiller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nannette May, FKA Nannette Klatt and others
Defendant: Miramax Film Corp. and Miramax, LLC
Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings
as 21-1011
Plaintiff: Melissa Thompson, Nannette Klatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sara Ann Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA Sarah Ann Masse and others
Defendant / Appellee: Nancy Ashbrooke, Richard Koenigsberg, Miramax Film NY, LLC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant: Larissa Gomes, Melissa Sagemiller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nannette May, FKA Nannette Klatt and others
Defendant: Miramax Film Corp. and Miramax, LLC
Robinson v. Defendants 1-97 et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2018cv12233
Defendant: Jerry Yang, Michael Logan, Douglas McMillion and others
Plaintiff: Sheila Robinson
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Dulany et al v. Miramax Film NY, LLC et al
as 1:2018cv04857
Defendant: Robert Weinstein, Lance Maerov, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Larissa Gomes, Melissa Thompson and Caitlin Dulany
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Geiss et al v. The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2017cv09554
Defendant: James Dolan, Richard Koenigsberg, John Does 1-50 and others
Plaintiff: Melissa Sagemiller, Louisette Geiss, Nannette Klatt and others
Not Classified By Court: Rowena Chiu, Wedil David, Dominique Huett and others
Interested Party: Miriam Haley
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

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?