Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 31
Bulkmatic Transport Company et al v. Abatte et al
as 2:2023cv00255
Plaintiff: Bulkmatic Transport Company, Bulkmatic, LLC and Bulkmatic Equipment Leasing, LLC
Defendant: Mike Abatte, Amanda Kurtz, Edgar Gomez and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Montes et al v. Cardenas et al
as 1:2022cv04208
Plaintiff: Hilario Montes, Jr., Nicolas Delgado, Uriel Delgado and others
Defendant: Louis Gerardo Cardenas, Eder Cifuentes, David Herrera and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2021cv09839
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CONNELLY et al v. CONNELLY et al
as 5:2021cv03981
Plaintiff: THOMAS P. CONNELLY, JR., T.P.C., III, E.M.C. and others
Defendant: LARISSA C. CONNELLY, JULIE M. POTTS, POTTS, SCHOEMAKER AND GROSSMAN, L.L.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. Zeya et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2021cv01032
Defendant: Alexis Del Sol Perez, L.M.T., Hasan Ismail Zeya, Palm Wellness Center, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: GEICO General Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Government Employees Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Abels, et al v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al
as 1:2020op45113
Plaintiff: William Anthony Mitchell (deceased), by and through daughter and next of kin, Felicia Leonard, Timothy Jay Minchew, Sherri Gates and others
Defendant: Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation and others
Petitioner: Rocklyn S. Smith
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2019mc00056
Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant: David Daleiden and Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al
as 3:2019mc80042
Defendant: David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC and others
Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood Center For Choice, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties, Inc. and others
Respondent: StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston
Receiver: Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, Inc. doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2019mc00009
Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant: Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver: Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Respondent: StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
as 2:2019at00042
Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant: Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver: Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California

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?