Cases 31 - 40 of 47
Bailey v. Cate et al
as 3:2011cv01129
Plaintiff:
Michael Bailey
Defendant:
Matthew Cate, Chu, M Martinez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bracamontes v. Moya et al
as 3:2010cv02512
Plaintiff:
Christian Bracamontes
Defendant:
Moya, Lopez, Lizarraga and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Garcia v. Smith et al
as 3:2010cv02433
Plaintiff:
Lenin Garcia
Defendant:
Smith, Steward, Chance and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lee v. The Arresting Officer of the San Diego Police Dept. et al
as 3:2010cv02178
Petitioner:
Anthony Bernard Lee
Respondent:
The Arresting Officer of the San Diego Police Dept., John Carroll and John and Jane Does
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Supler v. ARS National Services, Inc et al
as 3:2010cv01233
Plaintiff:
Jonathan W Supler
Defendant:
ARS National Services, Inc and John and Jane Does
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Permpoon v. H&R Block Mortgage Corporation et al
as 3:2010cv01062
Plaintiff:
Benjawan Permpoon
Defendant:
H&R Block Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and John and Jane Doe 1-5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rosser v. Sanchez et al
as 3:2010cv01037
Plaintiff:
Larry Rosser
Defendant:
H Sanchez, E Apodaca, R Crombie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dunmore v. Janda et al
as 3:2010cv00717
Plaintiff:
Richard Dunmore
Defendant:
G J Janda, L Romero, J Partida and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Koby et al v. ARS National Services, Inc. et al
as 3:2009cv00780
Plaintiff:
Michael P Koby, Michael Simmons and Jonathan W Supler
Defendant:
ARS National Services, Inc. and John and Jane Does
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Watkins v. Miller et al
as 3:2008cv02324
Plaintiff:
WM A. Watkins
Defendant:
Tracy Miller, Victorio A. Gorospe and John or Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: Federal 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.
