Cases 11 - 19 of 19
Solutions for Utilities, Inc., et al v. CPUC, et al
as 13-55206
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC., a California Non-Profit Corporation, MICHAEL E. BOYD and ROBERT SARVEY
Plaintiff:
SOLUTIONS FOR UTILITIES, INC., a California Corporation
Defendant - Appellee:
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, a Independent California State Agency, MICHAEL R. PEEVEY, TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON and others
Defendant:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, CO., a California Corporation, RACHEL CHONG, JOHN A. BOHN and others
Michael Boyd v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al
as 12-17434
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL E. BOYD
Defendant - Appellee:
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 12-16589
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Boyd et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al
as 5:2012cv00827
Plaintiff:
Michael E Boyd and Lynne Brown
Defendant:
United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY et al
as 1:2011cv02128
Plaintiff:
CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY and MICHAEL E. BOYD
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, STEVEN CHU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Boyd v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al
as 5:2011cv05018
Plaintiff:
Michael E Boyd
Defendant:
GMAC Mortgage LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registation Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2011cv01644
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Michael Boyd, et al v. FERC
as 10-72083
Petitioner:
MICHAEL E. BOYD and CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC.,, `
Respondent:
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
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.
