Cases 81 - 90 of 2,208
v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company
as 4:2023cv00332
Defendant:
AIG Specialty Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
GOODRICH v. THE JOINT CORP.
as 3:2023cv19442
Plaintiff:
GEORGE GOODRICH
Defendant:
THE JOINT CORP.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
SIMS v. J & W HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING INC
as 3:2023cv18129
Plaintiff:
SCOTT SIMS
Defendant:
J & W HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
NEVILLE v. BLUEGRASS LENDING GROUP INC
as 3:2023cv18088
Plaintiff:
JOHN MATTHEW NEVILLE
Defendant:
BLUEGRASS LENDING GROUP, INC.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00291
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
NEVILLE v. TRU CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
as 3:2023cv17555
Plaintiff:
JOHN MATTHEW NEVILLE
Defendant:
TRU CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
GAINESVILLE RESIDENTS UNITED, INC. et al v. DESANTIS et al
as 1:2023cv00176
Plaintiff:
GAINESVILLE RESIDENTS UNITED, INC., IRVING W WHEELER, JR, ROBERT HUTCHINSON and others
Defendant:
RON DESANTIS, ASHLEY MOODY, CORD BYRD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DOWNEY UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JUUL LABS INC, et al
as 3:2023cv16856
Defendant:
JUUL LABS INC, PAX LABS INC and PLOOM INC, ALTRIA GROUP INC and others
Plaintiff:
DOWNEY UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)
MATHESON-HOPWOOD v. HOPWOOD
as 5:2023cv00176
Plaintiff:
Nastasia Matheson-Hopwood
Defendant:
Micah Hopwood
Petitioner:
NASTASIA JIMAINE MATHESON-HOPWOOD
Respondent:
MICAH GEORGE HOPWOOD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
