Cases 1 - 10 of 100
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1468
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
RICARDO INC., WESLEY SCHARMEN, PHILIP MICHAEL and others
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1420
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
RICARDO INC., WESLEY SCHARMEN, PHILIP MICHAEL and others
Elizabeth Simon-Domingo, et al v. Merrick Garland
as 23-3842
Petitioner:
ELIZABETH GRISELDA SIMON-DOMINGO and BETZAYDA ELIZABETH PEDRO-SIMON
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01077
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Pedro Arellano-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland
as 23-3492
Petitioner:
PEDRO CARMELO ARELLANO-SANCHEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
USA v. Pedro Higareda
as 23-5444
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
PEDRO HIGAREDA
Sachs v. Ricardo Inc. et al
as 5:2023cv10643
Plaintiff:
George Sachs and George Sachs Doing business as Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
Ricardo Inc., Wesley Scharmen, Philip Michael and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Pedro Santiago-Alvarez v. Merrick Garland
as 23-3212
Petitioner:
PEDRO SANTIAGO-ALVAREZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
San Pedro Manufacturing Corp. v. Stock Yards Bank and Trust Co. et al
as 3:2022cv00651
Plaintiff:
San Pedro Manufacturing Corp.
Defendant:
Stock Yards Bank and Trust Co., Bank of America, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Spindler et al v. Just a Bit of Coin, Ltd et al
as 5:2022cv00137
Plaintiff:
Mike Spindler, Carl Canady, Adam Moyers and others
Defendant:
Just a Bit of Coin, Ltd, Steven Drawdy and George Lavoy Graham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
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.
