Cases 1 - 10 of 458
Ewing v. Suncharge Solar, LLC
as 3:2024cv01450
Defendant:
Suncharge Solar, LLC
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales
Britton v. The Talisman Condominium Association et al
as 4:2024cv00494
Defendant:
Caleb Ewing, Morgan Schoob and The Talisman Condominium Association
Plaintiff:
Kimberly Britton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
Cynthia Pollick v. Matthew Haar, et al
as 24-2334
Plaintiff:
CYNTHIA L. POLLICK
Defendant:
SAUL EWING, LLP and MATTHEW M. HAAR
Ewing v. Tomar et al
as 3:2024cv01254
Defendant:
ABC Corps 1-10, Does 1-10, XYZ, LLC's 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Ewing v. GG Homes, Inc
as 3:2024cv01223
Defendant:
GG Homes, Inc
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Ewing v. Gitre et al
as 3:2024cv01213
Defendant:
Relief Consultants, LLC and Christopher Gitre
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 (b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Ewing v. Flatrock Capital Partners, LLC
as 3:2024cv01180
Defendant:
Flatrock Capital Partners, LLC
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 (b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Ewing v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC
as 3:2024cv00993
Defendant:
Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 (b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Ewing v. Rowe et al
as 3:2024cv00974
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Defendant:
Gold Medal Funding, LLC and Jordyn Rowe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 (b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Ewing v. SofPulse, Inc
as 3:2024cv00912
Plaintiff:
Anton A. Ewing
Defendant:
SofPulse, Inc
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales
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.
