Cases 1 - 10 of 90
US v. Rolando Galeana-Trevino
as 24-4294
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ROLANDO GALEANA-TREVINO, a/k/a Rolando Galeana Trevino, a/k/a Rodolfo Romeromacias, a/k/a Rodolfo Romero, a/k/a Rodolfo Macias Romero, a/k/a Rodolfo Macias-Geleana, a/k/a Augustine Garcia, a/k/a Augustine Macias Garcia, a/k/a Marco Antonio Peres
Geneva Enterprises, LLC et al v. Chavez et al
as 1:2024cv00704
Plaintiff:
Geneva Enterprises, LLC and AV Automotive, LLC
Defendant:
Aaron Chavez, Alex Guevara, Ana Flores and others
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Keidy Cruz-Romero v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1212
Petitioner:
KEIDY YESENIA CRUZ-ROMERO, E.J.E.C. and H.J.E.C.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Sulma De Jesus Guandique-De Romero v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1154
Petitioner:
SULMA DE JESUS GUANDIQUE-DE ROMERO, W.A.R.G. and Z.M.R.G.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Elvin Romero-Lopez v. Merrick Garland
as 23-2090
Petitioner:
ELVIN OMAR ROMERO-LOPEZ and ANGELA JOHANY ROMERO-RIVERA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Francisco Romero v. Merrick Garland
as 23-1915
Petitioner:
FRANCISCO ROMERO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Alexandra Romero v. Merrick Garland
as 23-1559
Petitioner:
ALEXANDRA Y. ROMERO and J.A.R.R.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
US v. Luis Rendon-Romero
as 23-4164
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
LUIS ALBERTO RENDON-ROMERO, a/k/a Louis Alberto Rendon-Romero
Francisco Romero v. Merrick Garland
as 23-1002
Petitioner:
FRANCISCO ROMERO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Grant v. PETER WOLF & ASSOCIATES PC et al
as 9:2022cv04262
Plaintiff:
Terry Lennette Grant
Defendant:
PETER WOLF & ASSOCIATES PC, Peter Wolf, Esq, WOLF & MOGIL LLC and others
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.
