Cases 21 - 30 of 1,076
Ortega v. Sienna Marketing & Consulting Inc.,
as 5:2024cv00487
Plaintiff:
Mark Ortega
Defendant:
Sienna Marketing & Consulting Inc.,
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Gatica-Ortega v. Garland
as 24-3020
Petitioner:
EPIGMENIO GATICA-ORTEGA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ramirez-Rincon, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2907
Petitioner:
MONICA RAMIREZ-RINCON and NICOLAS ALEXIS ORTEGA-RAMIREZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Diego Morales-Ortega v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1910
Petitioner:
Diego Herlindo Morales-Ortega
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
United States of America v. Haxhaj (Beltran)
as 24-1135
Defendant:
BORIS BELTRAN, SHPENDIM HAXHAJ, YELTSIN BELTRAN and others
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ortega v. Fields et al
as 5:2024cv00440
Plaintiff:
Mark Anthony Ortega
Defendant:
Daniel Gilbert Fields and Eric Doe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Ortega v. Cally Consulting, PLLC
as 5:2024cv00439
Plaintiff:
Mark Anthony Ortega
Defendant:
Cally Consulting, PLLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
USA v. Ortega-Martinez
as 24-40258
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Gregorio Ortega-Martinez
(PS) Jacobs et al v. The Trustees of Princeton University et al
as 2:2024cv01143
Plaintiff:
Joel Brendon Jacobs and Kathleen Chambers
Defendant:
The Trustees of Princeton University, Princeton University Investment Co., Christopher Eisgruber and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act
Solis, et al. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et al.
as 24-2412
Plaintiff:
JANNET SOLIS, MICHAEL ORTEGA, ADVANCED WEIGHT LOSS SURGICAL ASSOCIATION and others
Defendant:
T-MOBILE US, INC. and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
