Cases 31 - 40 of 57
Ronald Emrit v. EBay, et al
as 18-55330
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant - Appellee:
EBAY, DITTO MUSIC, INC. and PAYPAL, INC.
Emrit v. PayPal, Inc. et al
as 8:2018cv00044
Defendant:
Ditto Music, Inc., EBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ronald Satish Emrit v. EBay et al
as 3:2018cv00319
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
EBay, Ditto Music, Inc. and PayPal, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
Maynard v. Paypal Inc et al
as 3:2018cv00259
Plaintiff:
Matthew Maynard and Maynard Investment Group LLC
Defendant:
Paypal Holdings Inc and Paypal Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Techject, Incorporated v. Paypal Holdings, Incorporated
as 1:2017cv04058
Plaintiff:
Techject, Incorporated
Defendant:
Paypal Holdings, Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Friends for Health: Supporting The North Shore Health Center et al v. PayPal, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv01542
Plaintiff:
Friends for Health: Supporting The North Shore Health Center and Terry Kass
Defendant:
PayPal, Inc, PayPal Charitable Giving Fund and PayPal, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Digital Enterprises LLC et al v. PayPal Incorporated
as 2:2016cv03286
Plaintiff:
Digital Enterprises LLC and Adnana Alisic
Defendant:
PayPal Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Wax et al v. FanDuel, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv10285
Plaintiff:
Barry Wax and Kenneth Rosen
Defendant:
FanDuel Inc., DraftKings, Inc., SAAHIL SUD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GOMEZ et al v. FanDuel, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv10239
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO GOMEZ , Ricardo Alejandro Garcia and John Gerecs
Defendant:
FanDuel Inc. , DraftKings, Inc., SAAHIL SUD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smith v PayPal, Inc.
as 1:2015cv14204
Plaintiff:
Marvin Smith
Defendant:
PayPal, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
