Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 11
ENDRES v. AIR CANADA, INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00883
Plaintiff: STEVEN ENDRES and STEVEN P. ENDRES
Defendant: AIR CANADA, INC., AIR FRANCE-KLM S.A., ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Endres v. Moody et al
as 1:2023cv12051
Plaintiff: Steven P. Endres and Pro se litigant Steven P. Endres
Defendant: Ashley Moody, Ken Paxton, City and County of San Francisco, California and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Joseph v. General Conference Corporation of 7th Day Adventist et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2023cv21552
Defendant: GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF 7TH DAY ADVENTIST, (CGC), General Conference Corporation of 7th Day Adventist et al and others
Plaintiff: Lorfils Joseph
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Andersen v. British Airways (BA) PLC et al
as 2:2022cv01594
Plaintiff: Lauren Andersen
Defendant: British Airways (BA) PLC, Mr. Anthony Battista, Esq., Three John and Jane Doe BA employees and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Andersen v. British Airways (BA) PLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv01045
Plaintiff: Lauren Andersen
Defendant: British Airways (BA) PLC, Mr. Anthony Battista, Esq., Three John and Jane Doe BA employees and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Larry Klayman v. Hillary Clinton, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 15-14080
Plaintiff - Appellant: LARRY E. KLAYMAN
Defendant - Appellee: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, CLINTON FOUNDATION, 1271 Avenue of the Americans, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10020 Service: Chairman Bruce Lindsey or Vice -Chairman Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky (nee' Chelsea Victoria Clinton), a.k.a. The William J. Clinton Foundation, a.k.a. The Bill, H and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2014cv03845
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_claimant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter_claimant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter_defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Motorola Corporation v. Uzan
as 14-3591
Plaintiff: Nokia Corporation
Plaintiff - Appellant: Motorola Credit Corporation, 21440 West Lake Cook Road, 6th Floor, Deer Park, Illinois 60010
Defendant-Counter-Claimant: Murat Hakan Uzan, Serve at: 100 United Nations Plaza, #46PHB New York, New York 10017 and Cem Cengiz Uzan, Serve at: 515 Park Avenue, #19 New York, New York 10022
Defendant: Motorola, Inc., Kroll Associates, Inc., Christopher B. Galvin and others
Appellee: Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank
Motorola Credit Corporation v. Uzan
as 13-2639
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Motorola Credit Corporation, 21440 West Lake Cook Road, 6th Floor, Deer Park, Illinois 60010
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant: Nokia Corporation
Defendant-Counter-Claimant: Murat Hakan Uzan, Serve at: 100 United Nations Plaza, #46PHB New York, New York 10017 and Cem Cengiz Uzan, Serve at: 515 Park Avenue, #19 New York, New York 10022
Defendant: Motorola, Inc., Kroll Associates, Inc., Christopher B. Galvin and others
Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Standard Chartered Bank
Motorola Corporation v. Uzan We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 13-2535
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Motorola Credit Corporation, 21440 West Lake Cook Road, 6th Floor, Deer Park, Illinois 60010
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant: Nokia Corporation
Defendant-Counter-Claimant: Murat Hakan Uzan, Serve at: 100 United Nations Plaza, #46PHB New York, New York 10017 and Cem Cengiz Uzan, Serve at: 515 Park Avenue, #19 New York, New York 10022
Defendant: Motorola, Inc., Kroll Associates, Inc., Christopher B. Galvin and others
Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Standard Chartered Bank

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?