Cases 1 - 9 of 9
In re: REV 973 LLC v. USDC-CALA
as 16-72624
Not Classified By Court:
WINCUP INC., JOHN'S AUTO REPAIR, a business of unknown form, YOUR CAR SPECIALIST and others
Petitioner:
REV 973 LLC, a California limited liability company
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
In re: REV 973 LLC v. USDC-CALA
as 16-72624
:
In re: REV 973 LLC, a California limited liability company
Petitioner:
REV 973 LLC, a California limited liability company
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
JOHN MOUREN-LAURENS, an individual, MIREILLE MOUREN-LAURENS, an individual, MOUREN-LAURENS OIL COMPANY, a corporation and others
Moore #086699 v. Arizona, State of
as 2:2015cv01777
Respondent:
Arizona, State of
Petitioner:
Deeandre Moore
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan and Samuel Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dutcher #067784 v. Ryan
as 2:2015cv01079
Plaintiff:
Robert William Dutcher
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, Terry Stewart, Samuel Lewis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murray #065477 v. Ryan et al
as 2:2015cv00971
Plaintiff:
Ronald Leslie Murray
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, Terry Stewart, Samuel Lewis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Taylor v. Ryan et al
as 4:2011cv00591
Plaintiff:
Damian Anthony-Lamar Taylor
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, Daryl Johnson, Sally Berg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Samuel Stovall v. James Tilton
as 11-56380
Petitioner - Appellant:
SAMUEL LEWIS STOVALL
Respondent - Appellee:
JAMES E. TILTON
Samuel Lewis v. B. Curry
as 10-15545
Petitioner - Appellant:
SAMUEL LEWIS
Respondent - Appellee:
B. CURRY
Samuel Lewis Stovall v. James E Tilton
as 2:2007cv03105
Petitioner:
Samuel Lewis Stovall
Respondent:
Jame E Tilton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
