Cases 11 - 20 of 212
Dunn, et al v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, et al
as 23-705
Petitioner:
STEVE OKSTAD, MICHAEL ANDERSON, BROOKE BALOCCA and others
Respondent:
SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. and REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC.
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, et al v. Dunn, et al
as 23-706
Petitioner:
SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
Respondent:
ANTHONY DUNN, CEYHAN HAKSAL, MICHAEL ROBINSON and others
Shibahara v. State of Oregon et al
as 6:2023cv01272
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth K. Shibahara
Defendant:
State of Oregon, Holly Catalina, Laura Ramirez Marin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv03889
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
USA v. Rachael Winslow
as 23-12230
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
RACHAEL MAIA WINSLOW, a.k.a. Pamela Henderson
Gilburd v. L'Oreal USA Incorporated
as 2:2023cv00687
Plaintiff:
Rachael Gilburd
Defendant:
L'Oreal USA Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Gilburd v. Trend and Tipsy Incorporated
as 2:2023cv00647
Plaintiff:
Rachael Gilburd
Defendant:
Trend and Tipsy Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01403
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01405
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01406
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection 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.
