Cases 11 - 20 of 9,752
Rodriguez v. General Motors, LLC
as 1:2024cv00636
Plaintiff:
Oscar O Rodriguez
Defendant:
General Motors, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Ramirez et al v. General Motors, LLC
as 1:2024cv00639
Plaintiff:
Maria Isabel Rodriguez Ramirez and Cesar Balderas Bernal
Defendant:
General Motors, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Adolfo Rodriguez v. Santa Ana Police et al
as 8:2024cv01226
Plaintiff:
Adolfo Rodriguez
Defendant:
Santa Ana Police, Orange Police, Tustin Police and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
US v. Rodriguez-Velez
as 24-1542
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ-VELEZ, a/k/a Eduardito
Espinoza Sarmiento v. Rodriguez Monteiro
as 24-1530
Plaintiff:
LUIS ALBERTO ESPINOZA SARMIENTO, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, GEOVANI PEREZ, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, ALFREDO PEREZ, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated and others
Defendant:
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO, as an individual
Hunt, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Pwc), et al.
as 24-3568
Plaintiff:
JAMES EVERETT HUNT, JUAN RODRIGUEZ, KURT VOUTAZ and others
Defendant:
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP (PWC), BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and others
US v. Hernandez-Rodriguez
as 24-1534
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
DINELSON HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ
USA v. Diaz Borrome, et al
as 24-2039
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ESTEBAN RAFAEL DIAZ BORROME, also known as Esteban Rafael Borrome Diaz, BEN CARRASQUILLOSANTO, JONATHAN FERNANDEZ MONTESINO and others
USA v. Jose Rodriguez, Jr.
as 24-3473
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
JOSE C. RODRIGUEZ, JR.
USA v. Rodriguez-Cruz
as 24-50435
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Jorge Rodriguez-Cruz
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.
