Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Shaffer et al v. C R Bard Inc et al
as 3:2020cv01572
Plaintiff:
Cheryl Jones-Latimer, Nancy Poff, Jamaun Ransom and others
Defendant:
Does 1 through 100 Inclusive, McKesson Corporation, C. R. Bard, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Powerteq LLC v. Moton
as 3:2016cv01090
Plaintiff:
Powerteq LLC
Defendant:
Ashraf Moton
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Bell v. County Of Galveston et al
as 3:2015cv00209
Plaintiff:
Sheila Renee Bell
Defendant:
County Of Galveston, Dwight D Sullivan, Secretary of State (Texas) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Bell v. County Of Galveston et al
as 3:2014mc00022
Plaintiff:
Sheila Renee Bell
Defendant:
County Of Galveston, Dwight D Sullivan, Secretary of State and others
Gary v. Moton et al
as 5:2014cv00705
Plaintiff:
Steven M. Gary
Defendant:
Gerald C. Moton and State Prosecutor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv04588
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Cricket Communications, Inc. v. RM World Inc. D/B/A Call Phone Expert et al
as 4:2013cv01296
Plaintiff:
Cricket Communications, Inc.
Defendant:
RM World Inc. D/B/A Call Phone Expert and Rahman A. Moton
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44 Trademark Infringement
Moton v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al
as 3:2012cv01362
Plaintiff:
Sammy Moton
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics Inc and Johnson & Johnson Services Inc
Pecial_master:
Special Master
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mason Companies, Inc. v. Shoe Mall Beaumont Inc. et al
as 4:2009cv03779
Plaintiff:
Mason Companies, Inc.
Defendant:
Shoe Mall Beaumont Inc., Sulaiman Moton and Faisal Ayub
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
Bell v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services et al
as 3:2009mc00012
Plaintiff:
Sheila Renee Bell
Defendant:
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services, Susan Edmondson, Rodney Moton 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.
