Cases 1 - 10 of 79
Haro v. Garland
as 21-648
Petitioner:
CARLOS CARDONA HARO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00494
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Kodiak Blaine, et al v. Benefis Health System, et al
as 22-35497
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KODIAK BLAINE, DOUGLAS DARKO, CHRISTOPHER FLOWER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM, BENEFIS HOSPITALS, INC., BENEFIS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. and others
Blaine et al v. Benefis Health System et al
as 4:2021cv00092
Defendant:
Magellan Resource Partners, Benefis Health System, Benefis Hospitals, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Kodiak Blaine, Douglas Darko, Christopher Flower and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Haro-Aguilar v. Garland
as 22-591
Petitioner:
JAVIER RAFAEL HARO-AGUILAR
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Haro-Banuelos v. Garland
as 22-260
Petitioner:
SERGIO IVAN HARO-BANUELOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Leprinceton Burks v. Los Angeles Police Department, et al
as 21-56213
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LEPRINCETON DEWON BURKS, AKA Dapper P, AKA P, AKA Pete Williams
Defendant / Appellee:
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, BRADLEY SCHUMACHER, 33696 Police Officer, in official capacity, MARTIN PINNER, 27242, Detective, in official capacity and others
USA v. Sergio Haro
as 21-10358
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
SERGIO ANTONIO HARO
USA v. Sergio Haro
as 21-10280
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
SERGIO ANTONIO HARO
Appellant:
ERIN MICHELLE CARRILLO
Interlink Products International, Inc. v Crowfoot et al
as 2:2020cv02277
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra, Drew Bohan, Wade Crowfoot and others
Plaintiff:
Interlink Products International, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
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.
