Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Cases filed in the Ninth Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Jones v. Sharecare et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv01364
Plaintiff: Cortez Daundre Jones
Defendant: Sharecare, Behavioral Health and Mendy Freeman
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Scott Freeman, M.D., v. Stephen Hurst, et al. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2022cv01433
Defendant: Ceruvia Lifesciences, Sunray Asset Management, Inc., Nico Forte and others
Counter Defendant: Scott Freeman, M.D.
Counter Claimant: Stephen Hurst
Nominal Defendant: Savant Addiction Medicine, LLC, Savant HWP Holdings, Inc. and Savant HWP, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)
Freeman v. Burbank et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2022cv01903
Plaintiff: Scott Freeman
Defendant: Russell Burbank, Stephen Hurst, Sunray Asset Management, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Freeman v. Burbank et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2022cv05022
Plaintiff: Scott Freedman and Scott Freeman
Defendant: Russell Burbank, Stephen Hurst, Sunray Asset Management, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe v. Louisiana Department of Justice et al
as 3:2022cv01419
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Defendant: Louisiana Department of Justice, State of Louisiana, City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe v. Louisiana Department of Justice et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2022cv01056
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Defendant: Louisiana Department of Justice, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt State of Louisiana, City of Baton Organizations Act and Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe v. Louisiana Department of Justice et al
as 6:2022cv01065
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Defendant: Louisiana Department of Justice, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt State of Louisiana, City of Baton Organizations Act and Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Song Pae, et al v. ReconTrust Company, N.A., et al
as 22-55407
Plaintiff / Appellant: SONG PAE, SANG OK PAE, a man and wife, MEESON PAE YANG, an individual and others
Defendant / Appellee: RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., a U.S. corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., commonly known as BNY Mellon, an American worldwide banking and financial service holding company, SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, FKA Safeguard Properties, LLC and others
Song Pae, et al v. ReconTrust Company, N.A., et al
as 22-55373
Plaintiff / Appellant: SONG PAE, SANG OK PAE, a man and wife, MEESON PAE YANG, an individual and others
Defendant / Appellee: RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., a U.S. corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., commonly known as BNY Mellon, an American worldwide banking and financial service holding company, SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, FKA Safeguard Properties, LLC and others
Song Pae, et al v. ReconTrust Company, N.A., et al
as 22-55375
Plaintiff / Appellant: SONG PAE, SANG OK PAE, a man and wife, MEESON PAE YANG, an individual and others
Defendant / Appellee: RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., a U.S. corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., commonly known as BNY Mellon, an American worldwide banking and financial service holding company, SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, FKA Safeguard Properties, LLC and others

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?