Cases 1 - 10 of 10,201
Dominguez v. Lowe's Companies Incorporated et al
as 2:2024cv01030
Plaintiff:
Martin Dominguez
Defendant:
Lowe's Companies Incorporated and Salesforce Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01959
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Martin-Landers LLC d/b/a Mark Martin Ford et al v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft et al
as 2:2024cv11185
Plaintiff:
Martin-Landers LLC d/b/a Mark Martin Ford and Martin-Landers Imports LLC d/b/a Mark Martin Kia
Defendant:
Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Compagnie Gnrale des tablissements and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Lemes Costa, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2817
Petitioner:
SILAS JUNIOR MARTINS LEMES COSTA, MIGUEL MARTINS REGES COSTA and JULYANNA COSTA REGES MENDES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Smith v. Gamboa, et al.
as 24-2790
Petitioner:
RONALD J. SMITH
Respondent:
MARTIN GAMBOA, Warden and ROB BONTA, Attorney General, State of California
Bailey v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, et al.
as 24-2798
Plaintiff:
EDWARD BAILEY
Defendant:
MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MICHAEL REESE, CPT. ERIC P. SMITH and others
Yoon et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
as 5:2024cv02612
Plaintiff:
Mary Yoon, William Martin and Kat Walker
Defendant:
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Pardinas v. Martin Martin Renovations, Inc.
as 1:2024cv21682
Plaintiff:
Otto Pardinas
Defendant:
Martin Martin Renovations, Inc. d/b/a Bath Fitter
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Martin v. Hurst et al
as 2:2024cv11155
Plaintiff:
Eric Martin
Defendant:
Robert Hurst, Erane Washington, Rachel L. McDuffie 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.
