Cases 21 - 30 of 264
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC v. COGECO US (PENN) LLC et al
as 2:2023cv00727
Plaintiff:
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC doing business as AT&T MOBILITY
Defendant:
COGECO US (PENN) LLC doing business as BREEZELINE, MAICOM SOLUTIONS, LLC doing business as MAICOM LLC and STONEMILE GROUP, LLC
Cross Defendant:
L&J ERECTION, INC., RUTHRAUFF SERVICE, LLC, COGECO US (PENN) LLC and others
Cross Claimant:
CONTROLS SERVICE & ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Counter Defendant:
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, etal. v. Kootenai County Idaho
as 2:2023cv00124
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, D/B/A AT&T Mobility, a Delaware LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company doing business as A.T. and T. Mobility
Defendant:
Kootenai County Idaho
Intervenor:
Potlatch Hill Neighborhood Group, Alissa Desancic, Joel Bowlby and others
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of St. Joseph, Missouri et al
as 5:2023cv06023
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
City of St. Joseph, Missouri and City Council of the City of St. Joseph, Missouri
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. The Village of Oyster Bay Cove, et al
as 2:2022cv07807
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
The Village of Oyster Bay Cove, The Zoning Board of Appeals of The Village of Oyster Bay Cove and The Planning Board of The Village of Oyster Bay Cove
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC v. Liberal, Kansas, City of et al
as 6:2022cv01264
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
Liberal, Kansas, City of and City Commission of the City of Liberal, Kansas
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Lane County, Oregon
as 6:2022cv01635
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, D/B/A AT&T Mobility and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
Lane County, Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Los Altos
as 22-16432
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, DBA AT&T Mobility
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a California municipal corporation
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. The Incorporated Village of Muttontown et al
as 2:2022cv05524
Plaintiff:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
The Incorporated Village of Muttontown, The Incorporated Village of Muttontown Board of Trustees, The Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Muttontown and others
Intervenor Defendant:
Lauren Calabrese, Aldo Calabrese, Tara Rice and others
Intervenor:
Russell McRory
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. et al v. AT&T Corp. et al
as 1:2022cv02206
Plaintiff:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia doing business as CenturyLink, Embarq Florida, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Embarq Missouri, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink and others
Counter Claimant:
AT&T Corp. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Defendant:
New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility, LLC, SBC Long Distance, LLC and others
Counter Defendant:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia, Embarq Florida, Inc., Embarq Minnesota, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Donald Wagda, et al v. AT&T Corp., et al
as 22-16173
Plaintiff / Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. DONALD WAGDA and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. DONALD CLOYCE WAGDA
Intervenor Plaintiff:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant / Appellee:
AT&T CORP., AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC and others
Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
