Cases 121 - 130 of 6,063
United States of America v. Rogers
as 23-3152
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CALEB MITCHELL ROGERS
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv09605
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
McCollum v. Hayes et al
as 3:2023cv01414
Plaintiff:
Portia McCollum and Raytheon Technologies Corporation
Defendant:
Gregory J. Hayes, Robert K. Ortberg, Frederic G. Reynolds and others
Nominal Defendant:
RTX Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Ferran v. Hayes et al
as 1:2023cv01220
Nominal Defendant:
RTX Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Technologies Corporation
Plaintiff:
Jose R. Ferran, III
Defendant:
Gregory J. Hayes, Neil Mitchill, Anthony F. O'Brien and others
Rogers v. Haynes
as 23-3037
Petitioner / Appellant:
DARYL ROGERS
Respondent / Appellee:
RONALD HAYNES, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center
Christine Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al
as 2:2023cv08976
Plaintiff:
Christine Rogers
Defendant:
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and Michael P. Santomassimo
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Eclipse Service Incorporated v. Solarcode LLC et al
as 2:2023mc00045
Plaintiff:
Eclipse Service Incorporated
Defendant:
Solarcode LLC, Solarcode Holdings LLC, Roger M Lehner and others
Lyons v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside
as 23-2871
Petitioner:
JOSHUA L. LYONS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
Not Classified By Court:
N. LE BEAU, OFFICER, No. 21831, LEVI MILLER, CAPTAIN, Head Supervisor, P. ROGERS, SERGEANT, No. 16174 Supervisor and others
Rogers v. Applied Consultants
as 23-708
Petitioner:
CORY A. ROGERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Respondent:
APPLIED CONSULTANTS, LLC
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.
