Cases 1 - 10 of 55
ARDAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC et al v. NOTARYCAM, INC. et al
as 2:2024cv00172
Plaintiff:
ARDAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC, INKED HOLDINGS, LLC, MORTGAGE CONNECT, L.P. and others
Defendant:
NOTARYCAM, INC. and HYE-JIN E. PORUPSKY
Jin-Pyong Yim v. National Institutes of Health
as 23-1601
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JIN-PYONG PETER YIM
Defendant / Appellee:
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Pelham v. VBIT Technologies Corp. et al
as 1:2023cv00162
Defendant:
Danh Cong Vo, Phuong D Vo, VBIT Technologies Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
Parker Pelham
Eichler v. VBIT Technologies Corp. et al
as 1:2022cv01574
Defendant:
Danh Cong Vo, Phuong D Vo, VBit Technologies Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Eichler
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Dettmering et al v. VBit Technologies Corp. et al
as 1:2022cv01482
Defendant:
Danh Cong Vo, Phuong D Vo, VBit Technologies Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
Ross Dettmering and Francis Mangubat
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Huntley v. VBIT Technologies Corp. et al
as 1:2022cv01164
Plaintiff:
Morgan C. Huntley
Defendant:
VBIT Technologies Corp., VBIT Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
YIM v. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
as 3:2021cv07031
Plaintiff:
JIN-PYONG PETER YIM
Defendant:
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Xi Lin v. Attorney General United States
as 21-1286
Petitioner:
XI JIN LIN
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Salguocar et al v. Girsky et al
as 1:2020cv01404
Defendant:
Jeff Ubben, Gerrit Marx, Mark Russell and others
Plaintiff:
Cynthia M. Langford, Prahant Salguocar and Nahid Hajarian
Nominal Defendant:
Nikola Corporation
Hua Zheng, et al v. Attorney General United States
as 20-3051
Petitioner:
XUEFENG JIN and HUA ZHENG
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
