Cases 11 - 20 of 334
Farr #607251 v. Whitmer et al
as 1:2023cv01135
Plaintiff:
Domonique Demetris Farr #607251
Defendant:
Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Law Revision Commission and People of the State of Michigan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Smith v. Rickel et al
as 2:2023cv12538
Plaintiff:
Michelle Smith
Defendant:
John M. Rickel, The Rickel law firm P.C. and Association Dues Assurance Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv12367
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Dobronski v. Russo et al
as 2:2023cv12288
Plaintiff:
Mark W. Dobronski
Defendant:
Anthony J. Russo, Jr. Doing business as The Russo Firm, Anthony John Russo, Jr. Doing business as RP Law LLC, Matthew A. Dolman P.A. Doing business as Dolman Law Group and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00926
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Rojas v. DV Injury Law PLLC et al
as 2:2023cv12140
Plaintiff:
Jorge Alejandro Rojas and Jorge Alejandro Rojas [E-filer]
Defendant:
DV Injury Law PLLC, Venar Raad Ayar and Daniel P Heilbrun
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv12069
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv11576
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
DeLuca v. Lockhart et al
as 2:2023cv11436
Plaintiff:
Steven DeLuca, Wesley J. Neal, Holzman Law and others
Defendant:
Jameel Lockhart
HOP Plaintiffs v. Liblang et al
as 2:2023mc50768
Plaintiff:
HOP Plaintiffs
Defendant:
Dani K. Liblang and Liblang Law Firm
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.
