Cases 1 - 4 of 4
Encompass Teleservices, Inc. v. Michael Boyle, et al
as 09-35719
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee:
ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation
Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellee:
RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy Scheets
Counter-defendant - Appellee:
SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona corporation, AKA Savant Call Center Associates, Inc., PATRICK BOYLE and JOHN A. CARGAL
Counter-defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL ALEXANDER BOYLE, pro se
Encompass Teleservices, Inc. v. William Holmes, et al
as 09-35718
Intervenor - Appellant:
WILLIAM N. HOLMES and W. HOLMES & CO., LLP
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee:
ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation
Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellee:
RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy Scheets
Counter-defendant - Appellee:
SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona corporation, AKA Savant Call Center Associates, Inc., PATRICK BOYLE, MICHAEL ALEXANDER BOYLE, pro se and others
Encompass Teleservices, Inc. v. Michael Boyle, et al
as 09-35612
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee:
ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation
Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellee:
RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy Scheets
Counter-defendant - Appellee:
SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona corporation, AKA Savant Call Center Associates, Inc., PATRICK BOYLE and JOHN A. CARGAL
Counter-defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL ALEXANDER BOYLE, pro se
Encompass Teleservices, Inc. v. William Holmes, et al
as 09-35572
Intervenor - Appellant:
WILLIAM N. HOLMES and W. HOLMES & CO., LLP
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee:
ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation
Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellee:
RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy Scheets
Counter-defendant - Appellee:
SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona corporation, AKA Savant Call Center Associates, Inc., PATRICK BOYLE, MICHAEL ALEXANDER BOYLE, pro se and others
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.
