Cases 41 - 49 of 49
OTC SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al v. JOHN DOES 1-50
as 1:2010cv00500
Plaintiff:
OTC SOLUTIONS, LLC , GOLDEN DRAGON MEDIA, INC. and PUDONG, LLC
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1-50
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1030
Supler v. RGS FINANCIAL, INC. et al
as 5:2010cv00111
Plaintiff:
Jonathan W. Supler
Defendant:
RGS FINANCIAL, INC. and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Supler v. FIRST REVENUE ASSURANCE, LLC et al
as 5:2009cv00550
Plaintiff:
Jonathan W. Supler
Defendant:
FIRST REVENUE ASSURANCE, LLC and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Moseley et al v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. et al
as 7:2009cv00210
Plaintiff:
James A. Moseley, The James A Moseley Trust Under Agreement Dated December 16, 1999, Barbara J. Moseley and others
Defendant:
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Bank of America Corporation and Unknown Investors/Purchasers of Plaintiffs' Mortgage ("John Does")
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Truth in Lending
Doe v. Roe
as 3:2009cv02000
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Jane Roe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Doe v. Roe
as 3:2009cv01000
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Jane Roe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Cadmus Communications Corp.
as 3:2009cv00421
Plaintiff:
Cadmus Communications Corp. and Cadmus Communications Corp.
Defendant:
John Doe
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Hair v. ARS National Services, Inc. et al
as 5:2009cv00298
Plaintiff:
Pamela Wiggins Hair
Defendant:
ARS National Services, Inc., Eric Lopez, Michelle Rayburn and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
CLEARWIRE CORPORATION v. DOE
as 1:2007cv00359
Plaintiff:
CLEARWIRE CORPORATION
Defendant:
JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
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.
