Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Ramirez-Campos v. Garland
as 23-849
Petitioner:
JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ-CAMPOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv11761
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Mendez et al v. General Motors, LLC et al
as 1:2022cv00853
Plaintiff:
Enil Donaire Mendez, Juan Carlos Ramirez Ramirez and Karen Ramirez
Defendant:
General Motors, LLC, General Motors, Inc. and General Motors Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00072
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Francia Alvarez, et al. v. Garland
as 21-568
Petitioner:
MARIA BEATRIZ ADRIANA FRANCIA ALVAREZ and JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ MUNOZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ramirez-Gonzalez v. USA
as 2:2020cv02476
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Juan Carlos Ramirez-Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Ramirez Argueta et al v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp. et al
as 1:2020cv04216
Plaintiff:
Santos Castellanos Velazquez and Juan Carlos Ramirez Argueta
Defendant:
Salvatore Doe, Don Filippo Restaurant Corp., Philip Arcara and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
RAMIREZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv38050
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
USA v. Juan Carlos Ramirez-Arcos
as 19-13371
Defendant / Appellant:
JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ-ARCOS
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Juan Ramirez Munoz, et al v. Jefferson Sessions, III
as 18-71685
Petitioner:
JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ MUNOZ and MARIA BEATRIZ ADRIANA FRANCIA ALVAREZ
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 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.
