Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Fedorova v. Foley et al
as 1:2022cv00991
Defendant:
Covius Document Services, LLC, Nationwide Title Clearing, LLC, William P. Foley, II and others
Plaintiff:
Elena Fedorova
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv01217
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2020cv60900
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bush v. Cardtronics Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv01373
Plaintiff:
William David Bush
Defendant:
Cardtronics Inc., Fiserv Inc. and BlackRock Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bush v. Cardtronics Inc. et al
as 3:2019mc80062
Plaintiff:
William David Bush
Defendant:
Cardtronics Inc., Fiserv Inc. and BlackRock Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Woodrow v. Fiserv Inc
as 2:2018cv01054
Defendant:
Fiserv Inc
Plaintiff:
Francis Woodrow
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
Lakshmi Arunachalam v. USDC-CASJ
as 18-71335
:
In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Ph. D.
Petitioner:
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Ph. D.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE
Real Party In Interest:
APPLE, INC., Assigns and Agents, and App Store Web Appilication Providers, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Assigns and Agents, and Samsung's Google Play Web Appilication Providers, FACEBOOK, INC., Assigns and Agents and others
Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv01250
Plaintiff:
Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D.
Defendant:
Apple, Inc. , Samsung Electronics America, Inc. , Facebook, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
John Tabar v. Fiserv, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv08304
Defendant:
Does and Fiserv, Inc.
Plaintiff:
John Tabar
Jason Alan v. Fiserv, Inc et al
as 2:2016cv05479
Plaintiff:
Jason Alan
Defendant:
Does and Fiserv, Inc.
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.
