Cases 21 - 30 of 118
Diaz et al v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al
as 1:2022cv02051
Plaintiff:
Lydia Gonzalez Diaz, Vanessa Walsh, Nina Crawford and others
Defendant:
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, New York City Housing Authority, Harlem River Preservation LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1437 U.S. Housing Act of 1937
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv00451
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv20522
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
United States of America v. Blackledge (Malik Crocker)
as 22-300
Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant:
Keyewanie Blackledge, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, AKA Monster, Abdul Abdullah, AKA Sealed Defendant 2, AKA Dula, AKA Abdul Rahm Abdullah, Clement Boateng, AKA Sealed Defendant 4, AKA Clem and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Malik Crocker, AKA Sealed Defendant 7, AKA Bread
USA v. James Jovan Ladson
as 22-10405
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JAMES JOVAN LADSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv00112
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Jovan Fredericks v. USA
as 21-14456
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOVAN DEMETRIUS FREDERICKS
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Jovan Denson v. United States
as 21-3813
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jovan J. Denson
Respondent / Appellee:
United States of America
US v. David McDonald
as 21-4611
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID JOVAN MCDONALD
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2021cv01618
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
