Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Camilo Ramirez-Contreras v. Merrick B. Garland
as 23-2639
Petitioner:
Camilo Andres Ramirez-Contreras
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Tamayo v. Clancy's Towing, Inc. et al In Re Subpoena Proceedings Before California Superior Court
as 3:2021cv00884
Defendant:
Dimas Andres Ramirez, Does 1 through 25 and Clancy's Towing, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Joe G. Tamayo
Petitioner:
United States of America, Susannah Graves and Mary H. Bowman
In Re:
Subpoena Proceedings Before California Superior Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Ramirez Martinez, et al. v. Garland
as 21-23
Petitioner:
JESUS ANDRES RAMIREZ MARTINEZ and MARIA DEL SOCORRO GARCIA BALBUENA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Ramirez-Ibanez
as 20-40738
Defendant / Appellant:
Johan Andres Ramirez-Ibanez
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
USA v. Juan Andres-Ramirez
as 19-50428
Defendant / Appellant:
JUAN CARLOS ANDRES-RAMIREZ
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
USA v. Andres Ramirez
as 18-50572
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ANDRES RAMIREZ, also known as Andres Ramirez
Andres Ramirez v. City of Los Angeles et al
as 2:2017cv08580
Defendant:
Levon Arushanyan, Chief Charlie Beck, City of Los Angeles and others
Plaintiff:
Andres Ramirez
Albert et al v. Vertical Screen, Inc. et al
as 3:2013cv01234
Plaintiff:
Andrew Albert , Jennifer Albert , Leonel Deleon and others
Defendant:
Vertical Screen, Inc. , ChexSystems Collection Agency, Inc. , CSC Credit Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
USA v. Andres Ramirez-Godina
as 10-10478
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ANDRES RAMIREZ-GODINA
USA v. Andres Ramirez-Godina
as 10-10067
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ANDRES RAMIREZ-GODINA
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.
