Cases 21 - 30 of 93
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2020cv00158
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Romero v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv02594
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Plaintiff:
Frank Romero
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROMERO v. BAHAMONE
as 1:2020cv00104
Plaintiff:
RODRIGO ANDRES ALVAREZ ROMERO
Defendant:
MARIA EUGENIA GAJARDO BAHAMONE and MARIA EUGENIA GAJARDO BAHAMONDE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2019cv00197
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Yet Classified:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
GUZMAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
as 5:2019cv00252
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AGENT JONES, AGENT REED and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT ROMERO GUZMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Guzman v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
as 1:2019cv02669
Defendant:
United States Department of Homeland Security, Agent M. Jones and Agent J. Reed
Plaintiff:
Roberto Romero Guzman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv02566
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1451
Mendoza-Perez et al v. Dhillon
as 1:2019cv00722
Plaintiff:
Santana Cardenas, Victor Manuel Sanchez, Eduardo Lopez-Romero and others
Defendant:
Uttam Dhillon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Arreola-Romero v. United States
as 1:2019cv00748
Petitioner:
Martin Arreola-Romero
Respondent:
United States
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
United States of America v. 275 Milton Rahn Road Rincon, Georgia 31326
as 4:2018cv00299
Defendant:
275 Milton Rahn Road Rincon, Georgia 31326
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Claimant:
Bani Romero-Hernandez and Ingrid Lopez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1355
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.
