Cases 31 - 40 of 1,749
US v. Astacio-Mendez
as 24-1166
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
JUAN ALBERTO ASTACIO-MENDEZ, a/k/a Astacio
US v. Astacio-Mendez
as 24-1173
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
JUAN ALBERTO ASTACIO-MENDEZ, a/k/a Astacio
Rosa v. Cook
as 24-427
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER ROSA
Defendant:
Captain TOLMIE, BLEKIS, PELLITERI and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01024
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00890
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Rosa v. Cook
as 24-270
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ALEXANDER ROSA
Defendant / Appellee:
Captain TOLMIE, BLEKIS, PELLITERI and others
Defendant:
ROLLIN COOK, WILLIAM MULLIGAN, AMONDA HANNAH and others
National Association of Blind Merchants et al v. The Army & Air Force Exchange Service et al
as 3:2024cv00277
Plaintiff:
National Association of Blind Merchants, Alicia Morris, Edgar Mendez and others
Defendant:
The Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Tom Shull, in his official capacity as Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Christine Wormuth, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Army and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Jul Erson v. Mendez De Erson
as 0:2024cv60168
Petitioner:
Ricky Jul Erson
Respondent:
Luz Marina Mendez De Erson
Guardian Ad Litem:
Julie Farach
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1097
Petitioner:
EDWIN ANTONIO MIRANDA-MENDEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Mendez v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
as 24-316
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RAUL MENDEZ
Defendant / Appellee:
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
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.
