Cases 1 - 10 of 10
N.V. Labs, Inc. v. Piney Lake Capital Management LP
as 3:2024mc00046
Plaintiff:
N.V. Labs, Inc. doing business as Reforma Group
Defendant:
Piney Lake Capital Management LP
Viral DRM LLC v. UNDERKNOWN CORP dba QU PASARA SI - WHAT IF ESPAOL et al
as 3:2023cv06598
Plaintiff:
Viral DRM LLC
Defendant:
UNDERKNOWN CORP dba QU PASARA SI - WHAT IF ESPAOL, JOHN DOE 1 dba NEWSNATION dba @NEWSNATIONTV, JOHN DOE 2 dba TRIBUN TIMUR dba @TRIBUNTIMUR and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
John Doe v. Roe 1, et al
as 22-15757
Plaintiff / Appellee:
JOHN DOE
Defendant / Appellant:
ROE 1
Defendant:
GOOGLE LLC, NOVENTA GRADOS, INFOBAE and others
JoySuds, LLC v. N.V. Labs, Inc.
as 1:2022cv03781
Plaintiff:
JoySuds, LLC
Defendant:
N.V. Labs, Inc. N.V. Labs, Inc., d/b/a Reforma Group and N.V. Labs, Inc. doing business as Reforma Group
Counter Claimant:
N.V. Labs, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nr Notice of Removal
Doe v. Google LLC et al
as 4:2020cv06822
Defendant:
Codigo Rojo Noticias, Reforma, Blogger.com and others
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Suhail Ishaq v. NV Labs, Inc. et al
as 8:2019cv00169
Plaintiff:
Jusuru International Inc., Suhail Ishaq and Jusuru International, Inc.
Petitioner:
NV Labs, Inc.
Defendant:
Does 1-50, NV Labs Inc. and NV Labs Inc. a Michigan Corporation doing business as Reforma Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
LCE Lux HoldCo S.a.r.l. v. Entretenimiento GM de Mexico
as 13-1281
Plaintiff - Appellee:
LCE Lux HoldCo S.a.r.l., successor in interet to AMC Netherlands HoldCo B.V., 920 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105 and AMC Europe S.A., 920 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellee:
AMC Entertainment, LCE Acquisition Sub, Inc. and LCE Mexican Holdings, Inc., 920 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellant:
Entretenimiento GM de Mexico S.A. de C.V., Edificio Parque Reforma Campos Eliseos #400 Piso 18 Col. Lomas de Chapultepec 11560 Mexico, D.F.
Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia v. The Republic of Peru
as 10-1612
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Figueiredo Ferraz E. Engenharia De Projeto LTDA.
Defendant - Appellant:
The Republic of Peru, Ministerio De Vivienda, Construccion Y Saneamiento and Programa Agua Para Todos (PAPT), successor by integration to Programa De Apoyo A La Reforma Del Sector Saneamiento (PARSSA), formerly known as Proyecto Especial Programa Nacional De Agua Potable & Alcantarillado (PRONAP)
Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia v. The Republic of Peru
as 10-478
Petitioner:
Ministerio De Vivienda, Construccion Y Saneamiento, Programa Agua Para Todos (PAPT), successor by integration to Programa De Apoyo A La Reforma Del Sector Saneamiento (PARSSA), formerly known as Proyecto Especial Programa Nacional De Agua Potable & Alcantarillado (PRONAP) and The Republic of Peru
Respondent:
Figueiredo Ferraz E. Engenharia De Projeto LTDA.
Defendant:
The Republic of Peru and the Ministry of Housing and Construction and Clean-up of the Republic of Peru, Programa Agua Para Todos, formerly known as Proyecto Especial Programa Nacional De Agua Portable Y Alacantarillado (PRONAP), formerly known as Programa De Apoyo a la Reforma Del Sector Sanaemiento (PARSSA
Figueiredo Ferraz E. Engenhari v. The Republic of Peru and the M
as 10-214
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Figueiredo Ferraz E. Engenharia De Projeto LTDA.
Defendant:
The Republic of Peru and the Ministry of Housing and Construction and Clean-up of the Republic of Peru, FKA Programa Agua Para Todos (PAPT), FKA Proyecto Especial Programa Nacional De Agua Portable Y Alacantarillado (PRONAP), FKA Programa De Apoyo a la Reforma Del Sector Sanaemiento (PARSSA)
Defendant - Appellant:
The Republic of Peru, Ministerio De Vivienda, Construccion Y Saneamiento and Programa Agua Para Todos (PAPT), Successor by integration to Programa De Apoya A La Reforma Del Sector Saneamiento (PARSSA), FKA Proyecto Especial Programa Nacional De Agua Portable Y Alacantarillado (PRONAP)
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.
