Cases 31 - 40 of 800
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04672
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01297
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2023cv01287
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Pan Digital Network Limited v. 2069913 Ontario Limited et al
as 2:2023cv00584
Plaintiff:
Pan Digital Network Limited
Defendant:
2069913 Ontario Limited, Christopher Fagon, Andrew Burrows-Trotman and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Charman v. Hightechlending Inc et al
as 3:2023cv01235
Plaintiff:
Thane Charman
Defendant:
Hightechlending Inc a business entity doing business as American Senior and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al
as 4:2023cv02207
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu et al
as 3:2023mc80161
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc. doing business as Rently
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Arthur G. Smith et al v. MAS Financial Services, Inc. et al
as 8:2023cv00987
Plaintiff:
Arthur G Smith and Kerri M Smith
Defendant:
MAS Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Fu et al
as 1:2023mc00055
Plaintiff:
Consumer 2.0, Inc. Doing business as Rently
Defendant:
Tonny Fu, Tonny Vu and John Doe
Charman v. Coale et al
as 3:2023cv01043
Plaintiff:
Thane Charman
Defendant:
Onyx Coale and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
