Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06525
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv22672
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
TUCKER v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INC.
as 3:2023cv20623
Plaintiff:
TYSON TUCKER
Defendant:
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
RISIS v. RISIS et al
as 2:2023cv03429
Plaintiff:
DANIEL M. RISIS
Defendant:
MARGARITA RISIS, MARK RISIS, DAVID BOGOMOLNY and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
DILLMAN v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
as 3:2023cv02456
Plaintiff:
SANDY DILLMAN
Defendant:
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
PINN v. NATIONS AUTO PROTECTION, LLC et al
as 3:2022cv05810
Plaintiff:
KELLY PINN
Defendant:
NATIONS AUTO PROTECTION, LLC and PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
PAXTON v. PROVENTION BIO, INC. et al
as 3:2021cv11613
Plaintiff:
ADAM PAXTON
Defendant:
ASHLEIGH PALMER, PROVENTION BIO, INC. and ANDREW DRECHSLER
Petitioner:
Theo Sher and GEORGE L. JORDAN, JR.
BAUMANN v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
as 3:2020cv03289
Plaintiff:
DARLENE BAUMANN
Defendant:
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
MISKOKOMON v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC. et al
as 3:2020cv03069
Defendant:
OX CAR CARE, INC. and PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM MISKOKOMON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BRODSKY v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC. et al
as 3:2019cv13582
Plaintiff:
JAY BRODSKY
Defendant:
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC. and DOES' 1 THROUGH 5
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.
