Cases 1 - 8 of 8
In re: Robert Hammer, et al
as 22-0504
Petitioner:
In re: ROBERT HAMMER, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, HSI, DAVID VICENTE PENA, FRANCISCO AYALA, Agent, ICE ERO and others
Respondent:
ISABELA ZELAYA, GERONIMO GUERRERO, CAROLINA ROMULO MENDOZA and others
Federal Trade Commission, et al v. Zurixx, et al
as 22-4042
Plaintiff:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
Defendant:
ZURIXX, CARLSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP UTAH, CJ SEMINAR HOLDINGS and others
Interested Party:
DAVID EFRON and EFRON DORADO SE
Receiver:
DAVID K. BROADBENT
Federal Trade Commission, et al v. Zurixx, et al
as 21-4141
Plaintiff:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
Defendant:
ZURIXX, CARLSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP UTAH, CJ SEMINAR HOLDINGS and others
Interested Party:
DAVID EFRON and EFRON DORADO SE
Receiver:
DAVID K. BROADBENT
Cannon: Bey v. City Of Chicago et al
as 1:2021cv04317
Plaintiff:
Christopher H- Cannon: Bey
Defendant:
City Of Chicago, Stark and Other Unknown Law Enforcement officers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
USA v. Christopher Cannon
as 21-5415
Defendant / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER LAMONT CANNON
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Federal Trade Commission, et al v. Zurixx, et al
as 20-4090
Defendant:
DORADO MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT, JAMES M. CARLSON, CARLSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP UTAH and others
Interested Party:
EFRON DORADO SE and DAVID EFRON
Plaintiff:
UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Receiver:
DAVID K. BROADBENT
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Zurixx et al
as 2:2019cv00713
Defendant:
James M. Carlson, Carlson Development Group, Christopher A. Cannon and others
Plaintiff:
Utah Division of Consumer Protection and Federal Trade Commission
Not Yet Classified:
David K. Broadbent
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045
USA v. Christopher Cannon
as 13-2201
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER H. CANNON
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.
