Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu et al
as 3:2023mc80161
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc. doing business as Rently
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu et al
as 1:2023mc00055
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc. Doing business as Rently
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu et al
as 3:2023mc80111
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc.
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu, et al.
as 1:2023mc00031
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc.
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Dusten Stothff v. Tonny Vanwilpe et al
as 2:2022cv05571
Plaintiff:
Dusten Stothff
Defendant:
Tonny Vanwilpe and Deborah Glasgow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable
Jerry A. Spolar et al v. Discovery Communications, LLC et al
as 2:2020cv08837
Plaintiff:
Tonny Jill Williamson and Jerry A. Spolar
Defendant:
Unrealistic Ideas, LLC, James Braun, Archie Gips and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
WAKEFERN FOOD CORP. et al v. ABRAMS et al
as 2:2020cv12083
Plaintiff:
TYROME ABRAMS, TYROME ABROMS, TYRONE ABROMS and others
Defendant:
GREENVILLE SUPERMARKETS GROUP, INC., INTERNATIONAL SUPERMARKETS GROUP, INC., TONNIE W. ABRAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Ariason v. Lynch et al
as 5:2016cv01259
Plaintiff:
Tonny M Ariason
Defendant:
Loretta Lynch, JEH Charles Johnson, Leon Rodriguez and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Matteson et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al
as 3:2015cv02313
Plaintiff:
Christina Matteson , Becky Gress , Melanie Johnson and others
Defendant:
Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management Inc
MATTESON et al v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC et al
as 1:2015cv01493
Plaintiff:
JASON BARRIOS, TERESA BAUDOUR, FELICIA BONSER and others
Defendant:
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 b3 Telephone Consumer Protection 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.
