Cases 11 - 20 of 1,297
Rivera-Rodriguez v. Garland
as 24-2473
Petitioner:
CELSO ALEXANDER RIVERA-RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rojas Ruiz, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2398
Petitioner:
YAMIL ALEXANDER ROJAS RUIZ, LESLIE ELENA RUFFASTO LIVIA and YARED YAMIL ROJAS RUFFASTO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
United States of America v. McCollough
as 24-2366
Defendant:
ROBERT ALEXANDER MCCOLLOUGH and Robert McCollough
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02992
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Sandoval-Cho, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2252
Petitioner:
MYLVIA SACELA SANDOVAL-CHO and DIEGO ALEXANDER MELCHOR-SANDOVAL
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Alexander v. Springer et al
as 3:2024cv02139
Plaintiff:
Carrie Alexander
Defendant:
Daniel D. Springer, Enrique Salem, Peter Solvik and others
G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Vonda et al
as 2:2024cv00794
Plaintiff:
G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC
Defendant:
Alexander Vonda individually and: doing business as Red Bottomz and Dreamscape Partners LLC an unknown business entity doing business as Red Bottomz
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0605 Communications Act of 1934
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02751
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Thompson, et al. v. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office, et al.
as 24-2113
Plaintiff:
RONALD THOMPSON and RACHEL A. THOMPSON
Defendant:
DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JONATHAN EBNER, in both his official and individual capacity, AARON ALEXANDER, in both his official and individual capacity and others
Irvine, et al. v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
as 24-1984
Respondent:
ALEXANDER IRVINE and BARBARA TWADDELL
Petitioner:
FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER
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.
