Cases 31 - 40 of 50
Celine Tran v. Shad Gregory Moss et al
as 2:2016cv01214
Defendant:
Does 1 to 10, Shad Gregory Moss and Universal Music Group Inc
Plaintiff:
Celine Tran
Tran v. Moss et al
as 1:2016cv00381
Plaintiff:
Celine Tran
Defendant:
Shad Gregory Moss and Universal Music Group, Inc.
Tran v. Moss et al
as 1:2016cv00315
Plaintiff:
Celine Tran
Defendant:
Shad Gregory Moss , Universal Music Group, Inc. and Does 1 to 10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Tran v. Moss et al
as 1:2016mi00005
Plaintiff:
Celine Tran
Defendant:
Shad Gregory Moss and Universal Music Group, Inc.
Menefee v. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al
as 4:2015cv00334
Plaintiff:
Henley Menefee
Defendant:
Universal Music Group , Interscope Records and Quincy Matthew Haney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Tran v. Moss et al
as 1:2013mi00159
Plaintiff:
Celine Tran
Defendant:
Shad Gregory Moss, Universal Music Group, Inc. and Does 1 to 10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Tennyson v. Citigroup et al
as 6:2013cv00609
Plaintiff:
Tanya Tennyson
Defendant:
Citigroup, Bain Capital, Thomas H. Lee Partners and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Saregama India Ltd. v. TIMOTHY MOSLEY, et al.,
as 1:2012mc00045
Plaintiff:
Saregama India Ltd.
Defendant:
G-Unit Record, Inc., , Timothy Mosely , Desperado Entertainment, Inc., and others
Cause Of Action: M 18-302 Registration of Foreign Judgment
Rock River Communications, Inc v. Universal Music Group, Inc., et al
as 12-55180
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ROCK RIVER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant - Appellant:
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., UMG RECORDINGS, INC. and UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INTERNATIONAL, LTD
Rock River Communications, Inc v. Universal Music Group, Inc., et al
as 11-57168
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROCK RIVER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., UMG RECORDINGS, INC. and UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INTERNATIONAL, LTD
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.
