Cases 141 - 150 of 1,682
USA v. Moreno-Hernandez
as 22-20194
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Alberto Moreno-Hernandez, also known as Miguel Lopez-Medina, also known as Carasco-Molina
USA v. Moreno-Gomez
as 22-40233
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Adelfino Moreno-Gomez, also known as Alberto Moreno-Hernandez
Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services
as 22-90018
Respondent:
Heriberto Chavez, Evangelina Escarcega, as the legal representative of her son Jose Escarcega and Jorge Moreno
Petitioner:
Plan Benefit Services, Inc., Fringe Insurance Benefits, Incorporated and Fringe Benefit Group
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00422
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022at00244
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
US v. Christian Hernandez Moreno
as 22-4218
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ MORENO
Ramirez Moreno v. Garland
as 22-644
Petitioner:
ISSAC RAMIREZ MORENO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Moreno v. Garland
as 22-614
Petitioner:
FELIX MORENO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Gomez-Echeverria et al v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC et al
as 1:2022cv00314
Plaintiff:
Luis Gomez-Echeverria and Hervil Gomez-Echeverria
Defendant:
Emilto Moreno Gomez, Lucille Jean Moreno and Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
United States of America v. Francisco-Ovalle (Montesino)
as 22-308
Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant:
Envert Francisco-Ovalle, AKA Gringo, Hector Caba Batista, AKA Moreno, Luis Caba Batista and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Dorfi Montesino, AKA Dee
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.
