Cases 41 - 50 of 3,769
USA v. Gonzales-Landeros
as 23-50631
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Gabriel Gonzales-Landeros
TOMASZEWSKI et al v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al
as 2:2023cv03888
Plaintiff:
SLAWOMIR TOMASZEWSKI, ARTUR PRAZAK, MICHAL JAN SZWARC and others
Defendant:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UR MENDOZA JADDOU, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Gonzales v. Enidan Enterprises, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv02386
Plaintiff:
Nickson Gonzales
Defendant:
Enidan Enterprises, LLC and Jamal King
3Rd Party Defendant:
United States Postal Service and Superior Handling Equipment, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Rangel-Gonzales v. Garland
as 23-6874
Petitioner:
ERDMENGER RANGEL-GONZALES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Gonzales-Garcia
as 23-10863
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Fredesvindo Gonzales-Garcia, also known as Daniel Madril, also known as Trino Gonzales
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01076
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act
HOUCK v. EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al
as 3:2023cv04113
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HOUCK
Defendant:
EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, RANDALL GONZALE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Gonzales Veliz v. Garland
as 23-115
Petitioner:
JORGE ALBERTO GONZALES VELIZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Gonzales
as 23-10760
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Robert Gonzales
Herrera Gonzales v. Garland
as 22-895
Petitioner:
GERSON OBED HERRERA GONZALES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
