Cases 1 - 10 of 432
Murillo-Ramos v. Garland
as 24-3109
Petitioner:
MIGUEL MURILLO-RAMOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Vasquez v. Fast Track Leasing LLC et al
as 2:2024cv00939
Plaintiff:
Christian Murillo Vasquez
Defendant:
Fast Track Leasing LLC and Deninson Dugarte Rivas
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 32710 Federal Odometer Act
Keene, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
as 24-1574
Plaintiff:
SELINA KEENE, MARK MCCLURE, MELODY FOUNTILA and others
Defendant:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, LONDON BREED, CAROL ISEN and others
Castellanos-Murillo, et al. v. Garland
as 24-1386
Petitioner:
ELVIN NAHUM CASTELLANOS-MURILLO and LEANDRO CASTELLANOS-FUENTES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Reyes Murillo, et al. v. Garland
as 24-776
Petitioner:
ALAN REYES MURILLO, ANGELES REYES NU EZ, VILMA NUNEZ and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Murillo-Angulo
as 24-20055
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Edward Erley Murillo-Angulo
Crews v. God Family Home Solutions LLC et al
as 2:2024cv00109
Plaintiff:
Jason Crews
Defendant:
God Family Home Solutions LLC and Fabian Murillo
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Murillo v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
as 24-126
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MARIBEL MURILLO, individually and as successor-in-interest of the Estate of deceased, Jonathan Murillo-Nix
Defendant / Appellant:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity and JESUS MARTINEZ, individually
Defendant:
KYLE GRIFFIN
Chang-Bermudez, et al. v. Garland
as 23-4462
Petitioner:
OKEL DANIEL CHANG-BERMUDEZ, KAREN JUDITH PEREZ-MURILLO and TIFFANI DANIELA CHANG-PEREZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Murillo-Gonzalez v. Garland
as 23-8069
Petitioner:
JONATHAN EDUARDO MURILLO-GONZALEZ and BRITTANY VALERIA CEDILLO-GONZALES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
