Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Naicom Corporation, et al v. Dish Network Corporation, et al
as 24-1416
Plaintiff:
NAICOM CORPORATION, D&V IP HOLDINGS, LLC, PAYLINK, LLC and others
Defendant:
DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, DISH NETWORK L.L.C., NAGRASTAR L.L.C. and others
Oparaji v. Home Retention Corp.
as 23-270
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Maurice Oparaji
Defendant / Appellee:
Home Retention Corp., Borchert and Laspina, PC, Robert W. Frommer and others
Naicom Corporation et al v. Dish Network Corporation et al
as 3:2021cv01405
Plaintiff:
Naicom Corporation, D&V IP HOLDINGS, PAYLINK LLC and others
Defendant:
Dish Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Oparaji v. Home Retention Corp. et al
as 1:2021cv02758
Defendant:
Jordan Smith, Akerman LLP, Home Retention Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
Maurice Oparaji
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Carbone v. Shiba et al
as 1:2016cv07148
Plaintiff:
Russell Carbone
Defendant:
Ashley Sparrow Miller, Michael Shiba and Jordan Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Ryan Corley et al v. Google, Inc.
as 5:2016cv00473
Plaintiff:
Ryan Corley, Samuel Frank, Nicholas Corpuz and others
Defendant:
Google, Inc. and Google, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
United States v. Smith
as 12-3289
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JORDAN SMITH
Rafter v. Weiss et al
as 1:2012cv00727
Plaintiff:
Marcia Rafter
Defendant:
Rachel Seligman Weiss, Michael Cardozo, Muriel Goode-Trufant and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2010cv03255
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Jordan-Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
as 4:2010mc00360
Plaintiff:
Tisha Nicole Jordan-Smith
Defendant:
Experian Information Solutions, 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.
