Cases 21 - 30 of 42
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Acevedo- Lopez et al
as 3:2016cv02184
Plaintiff:
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.
Defendant:
Nelson Acevedo- Lopez, Luz Marina Bobe-Rivera and Conjugal Partnership Acevedo-Bobe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BOBE et al v. SOTO et al
as 2:2015cv06014
Plaintiff:
IVONNE BOBE and LAURA MONTALVO
Defendant:
MICHAEL A. SOTO, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-25, POLICE OFFICERS JANE DOES 1-25 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
US v. Otero-Marquez
as 15-2244
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
EDWIN OTERO-MARQUEZ
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
US v. Mendoza-Ortega
as 15-2168
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
ISAIAS MENDOZA-ORTEGA
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
US v. Otero-Diaz
as 15-2104
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
EDWIN OTERO-DIAZ
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
US v. De La Cruz-Vazquez
as 15-2001
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
JOSE A. DE LA CRUZ-VAZQUEZ
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
US v. Perez-Torres
as 15-1975
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
BRIAN PEREZ-TORRES
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
US v. Martinez-Trinidad
as 15-1966
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
RAFAEL MARTINEZ-TRINIDAD
Interested Party:
LOURDES BOBE-SANTIAGO, Registrar of Property of Humacao
Bobe v. Sigmon et al
as 3:2014cv01966
Plaintiff:
Marcello Bobe
Defendant:
Michael Sigmon and Peter Conti
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Matos et al v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv01341
Plaintiff:
Maria Matos and G.L.M.
Defendant:
Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc., Emmanuel Bobe-Rosario, Jane Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1402
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.
