Cases 11 - 20 of 1,338
Mejia v. US Bank
as 3:2024cv00652
Plaintiff:
Graciela H Mejia
Defendant:
US Bank
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
United States of America v. Mejia
as 24-2111
Defendant:
JOSE LUIS MEJIA, Cheech and Seal KK
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mendez-Jimenez v. Garland
as 24-815
Petitioner:
HECTOR ALCIDES MENDEZ-JIMENEZ, JOHANA ESTEFANY AQUINO-MEJIA, JOAQUIN ALCIDES MENDEZ-AQUINO and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cordova-Mejia, et al. v. Garland
as 24-1941
Petitioner:
EDGAR ALEXANDER CORDOVA-MEJIA, LEYDEN ALEXANDRA CORDOVA-HENRRIQUEZ, JAIRO RESIERE HENRRIQUEZ-CASTRO and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
United States of America v. Mejia
as 24-1915
Defendant:
SERGIO MEJIA, Seal JJ and Jaws
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AKF INC., D/B/A FUNDKITE v. Skybell Technologies Inc. d/b/a Skybell/Skybell Powering Our Partners et al
as 1:2024cv02270
Petitioner:
AKF INC., D/B/A FUNDKITE
Respondent:
Skybell Technologies Inc. d/b/a Skybell/Skybell Powering Our Partners, Ronald G. Carriques, Big Top Tech LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award
AKF Inc. v. Skybell Technologies Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv02271
Petitioner:
AKF Inc. doing business as Fundkite
Respondent:
Skybell Technologies Inc. doing business as Skybell/Skybell Powering Our Partners, Ronald G. Carriques, RTL LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award
Gonzalez Mejia v. Garland
as 24-1774
Petitioner:
HUGO ERNESTO GONZALEZ MEJIA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
United States v. Mejia-Zavala
as 24-2043
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
JOSE MEJIA-ZAVALA
United States of America v. Mejia
as 24-1684
Defendant:
JOSE LUIS MEJIA, Cheech and Seal KK
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
