Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Nicholas Acedo et al v. City of Los Angeles
as 2:2023cv04482
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Acedo, Daniel Ackley, Derek Adair and others
Defendant:
City of Los Angeles
Respondent:
Michael Walton
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act
Romine v. Springdale, Town of et al
as 3:2023cv01155
Plaintiff:
Robert Romine
Defendant:
Springdale, Town of, Carl Wilhelm, Matthew Young and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
NOT USED
as 2:2019cv01841
Defendant:
Accident Lending Group, LLC d/b/a AccidentLoan.com, PBS Anesthesia, LLC, Nevada Spine Clinic and others
Plaintiff:
Arturo Contreras
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Lerner & Rowe Injury Attorneys v. Contreras et al
as 2:2019cv01843
Defendant:
Smoke Ranch Surgery Center, LLC, Accident Lending Group, LLC d/b/a AccidentLoan.com, PBS Anesthesia, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Lerner & Rowe Injury Attorneys
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Contreras Corona v. BTA Building & Developing Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv04283
Defendant:
Joseph Rubin, Rubin Development and Construction, Inc., Billie Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Arturo Contreras Corona
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Contreras et al v. Brown et al
as 3:2017cv08217
Plaintiff:
Arturo Contreras and Jose N Torres
Defendant:
Chester David Brown , Unknown Parties and Legacy Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
USA v. Jorge Contrera
as 16-11779
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JORGE ARTURO CONTRERAS
USA v. Jose Aviles-Estrada
as 11-40114
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOSE AVILES-ESTRADA, also known as Arturo Contreras-Lopez, also known as Jose Luis Estrada
USA v. Zepeda-Cardenas
as 07-51371
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOSE ARTURO ZEPEDA-CARDENAS, also known as Arturo Contreras-Zepeda
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.
