Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01496
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Aramic LLC v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. et al
as 5:2021cv09585
Plaintiff:
Aramic LLC
Defendant:
Revance Therapeutics, Inc., Mark J. Foley and Tobin C. Schilke
State of Arizona, et al v. USDC-AZT
as 21-71312
Not Classified By Court:
In re: STATE OF ARIZONA, ANDY TOBIN, PAUL SHANNON and others
Petitioner:
STATE OF ARIZONA
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, TUCSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv01047
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
The Morningstar Company, et al v. Robert Benech
as 18-16615
Appellant:
THE MORNINGSTAR COMPANY, WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN, Law Corporation and CHRIS RUFER
Appellee:
ROBERT BENECH
George H Johnson Revocable Trust v. Arizona Corporation Commission et al
as 2:2018cv02325
Defendant:
Andy Tobin, Justin Olson, Boyd Dunn and others
Plaintiff:
George H Johnson Revocable Trust
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MGM Resorts International et al v. Booth et al
as 2:2018cv02250
Defendant:
Mario Latka, Thomas Cameron Morrier, Mark Lathen and others
Plaintiff:
Mandalay Resort Group, MGM Resorts Venue Management LLC, MGM Resorts International and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv01024
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv02197
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
National Paving Co., Inc. et al v. Lindholm et al
as 5:2017cv01216
Defendant:
Richard Lindholm, Rita Phillips and Nick Tobin
Movant:
National Paving Co., Inc.
Plaintiff:
Carlos Ramos
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.
