Cases 1 - 10 of 583
Harmon v. Biden et al
as 6:2024cv00205
Plaintiff:
Clark Harmon
Defendant:
Joe Biden, Merrick B. Garland, Mike Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Harper v. Georges, et al.
as 24-3514
Plaintiff:
PATRICK ROY HARPER
Defendant:
PETER GEORGES, individually and in his official capacity as California Department of Fish and Wildlife, LORI FRUGOLI, individually and in her official capacity as District Attorney County of Marin, MICHAEL WEAR, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy District Attorney County of Marin and others
Derek Harmon, Sr. v. Coleman Worldwide Moving, LLC
as 24-1413
Plaintiff:
DEREK KENT HARMON, SR.
Defendant:
COLEMAN WORLDWIDE MOVING, LLC
USA v. Jordan Harmon
as 24-1797
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
JORDAN DONYELL HARMON
Harmon v. Coleman Worldwide Moving, LLC
as 1:2024cv00351
Plaintiff:
Derek Kent Harmon, Sr.
Defendant:
Coleman Worldwide Moving, LLC
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 11706 Carmack Amendent
Harmon et al v. General Motors, LLC
as 1:2024cv00237
Plaintiff:
Landon Gage Harmon and Aimee Elizabeth Tewes
Defendant:
General Motors, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Schultz-Harmon et al v. General Motors, LLC
as 1:2024cv00106
Plaintiff:
Ashlee Marie Schultz-Harmon and Brian Harmon
Defendant:
General Motors, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Holt, et al. v. Urban League of Portland, Inc., et al.
as 24-633
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVEN HOLT, an individual and TRY EXCELLENCE, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
URBAN LEAGUE OF PORTLAND, INC., Urban League of Portland, Inc. an Oregon Domestic non-profit corporation, NKENGE HARMON-JOHNSON, individually and as President and CEO of THE URBAN LEAGUE OF PORTLAND, INC., MICHAEL LEWELLEN, individually and as Board Chairman of THE URBAN LEAGUE OF PORTLAND, INC. and others
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.
