Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Topa Spirits, LLC v. Mezcal De Amor, S.A.P.I. DE C.V.
as 4:2024cv01341
Plaintiff:
Topa Spirits, LLC
Defendant:
Mezcal De Amor, S.A.P.I. DE C.V.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44 Trademark Infringement
Pinnacle Amor Company, Inc. v. Neal et al
as 6:2021cv01090
Plaintiff:
Pinnacle Amor Company, Inc.
Defendant:
Murry Neal, Shirley Nash and David Goldflies
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2020cv04323
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Produce Pay, Inc. v. Amore Produce, LLC et al
as 7:2020cv00293
Defendant:
Jaime Moreno, Carlos Ayala Rodriguez, Dora Ramirez and others
Plaintiff:
Produce Pay, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 07 U.S.C. § 499
De La Vega v. Interlinc Mortgage Services, LLC et al
as 5:2020cv00386
Plaintiff:
Amor De La Vega
Defendant:
Interlinc Mortgage Services, LLC and Blue Goose, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv02183
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lemon et al v. Nurses To Go, Inc. et al
as 4:2016cv01775
Plaintiff:
Deborah Lemon , Sarah Diaz , Eric Castillo and others
Defendant:
Nurses To Go, Inc. , Walter F. Crowder , Amed Health, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3730 Qui Tam False Claims Act
Amor v. Colvin
as 3:2016cv00122
Plaintiff:
Maria Luisa Amor
Defendant:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Notice Only Party:
Social Security Liaison and U.S. Attorney Liaison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Pope v. Chatham et al
as 3:2016cv00101
Plaintiff:
Cecil Andrew Pope
Defendant:
Andrew Chatham, Lisa Smith, Reed Prosper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pope v. Chatham et al
as 4:2016cv00004
Plaintiff:
Cecil Andrew Pope
Defendant:
Andrew Chatham, Lisa Smith, Reed Prosper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
