Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garlock et al
as 3:2013cv02202
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Todd J. Garlock, GI Enterprises of Findlay, Inc. and Anthony P. Iriti
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Franklin et al
as 3:2012cv02622
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Jody L. Franklin, P D M F, Inc. and Christine L. Franklin
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553 Violation of Illegal Interception of Cable System
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. McDonald et al
as 2:2011cv00322
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Michal P. McDonald, Joseph A. Dialbert and Spot, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Marciano et al
as 4:2010cv02330
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Raymond P Marciano and Slammin Sams Stagecoach, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ortiz
as 3:2010cv02027
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Dora P Ortiz
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Lewis et al
as 4:2010cv00329
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Ron Lewis and A&P, INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553 Violation of Illegal Interception of Cable System
Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. Schroeder
as 3:2009cv02502
Plaintiff:
Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.
Defendant:
Stephen P. Schroeder
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553 Violation of Illegal Interception of Cable System
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kelly et al
as 1:2009cv01920
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Michael P. Kelly and The Dog House Bar & Grill, Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553 Violation of Illegal Interception of Cable System
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Saadey et al
as 4:2009cv00725
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Anthony P. Saadey and Chipper's, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
