Cases 1 - 10 of 100
In Re: Max Vance
as 26-2093
Petitioner:
In re: MAX VANCE, a/k/a Andre J. Burk
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MATTHEW W. BRANN
VELAZQUEZ ORDONEZ v. SHAW-WILDER et al
as 1:2026cv01573
Plaintiff:
JERSON VELAZQUEZ ORDONEZ
Defendant:
DETRA SHAW-WILDER, CAROLYNA DELIZIA SWIFT, RACHAEL LOKOHEN and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
David Carpenter v. Mike Barton, et al
as 26-1977
Plaintiff:
DAVID CARPENTER
Defendant:
MIKE BARTON, RICHARD WALTER LONG, PAUL J. KILLION and others
GRAHAM v. CLIFFORD et al
as 2:2026cv02894
Plaintiff:
BRIAN L. GRAHAM
Defendant:
THE HONORABLE DANIEL CLIFFORD, SHERIFF SEAN P. KILKENNY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Keith Chan v. Karen Bacdayan, et al
as 26-1696
Plaintiff:
Keith Chan
Defendant:
Karen May Bacdayan, Kevin C. McClanahan and Re/Max
Mya Batton, et al v. National Association of Realtors, et al
as 26-1644
Plaintiff:
MYA BATTON, AARON BOLTON, MICHAEL BRACE and others
Defendant:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE INC., RE/MAX and others
Chan v. Bacdayan
as 26-30177
Plaintiff:
Yu Hin Chan
Defendant:
Karen May Bacdayan, Kevin C. McClanahan, Carmen A. Pacheco and others
RE/MAX LLC v. MMS Investment Group, LLC, et al
as 1:2026cv00963
Plaintiff:
RE/MAX LLC
Defendant:
Mike Sanchez and MMS Investment Group, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
Okorie v. United States Fire Insurance Company et al
as 2:2026cv00029
Plaintiff:
Ikechukwu H. Okorie
Defendant:
United States Fire Insurance Company, Don Van Tran, RE/MAX United and others
Interested Party:
Crum & Foster Insurance Group and FFHL Group LTD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Chan v. Bacdayan
as 26-40105
Plaintiff:
Yu Hin Chan
Defendant:
Karen May Bacdayan, Kevin C. McClanahan, Carmen A. Pacheco 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.
