Cases 1 - 10 of 4,481
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 9:2024cv80652
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Rodriguez-Cruz, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3159
Petitioner:
EVELYN YANIRA RODRIGUEZ-CRUZ and JEROBOAM OSEAS NATANAHEL NAJAERA-RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mi Familia Vota, et al. v. Petersen, et al.
as 24-3188
Plaintiff:
MI FAMILIA VOTA, VOTO LATINO, LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA and others
Defendant:
ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State, KRIS MAYES, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, in her official capacity as Arizona Attorney General, STATE OF ARIZONA and others
Intervenor:
WARREN PETERSEN, President of the Arizona Senate, BEN TOMA, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Fausto Cruz Claros v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1446
Petitioner:
FAUSTO EULISES CRUZ CLAROS, SANDRA GUADALUPE AMAYA DE CRUZ, E.M.C.A. and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Alfaro Cruz, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3130
Petitioner:
MARIA SUYAPA ALFARO CRUZ, ANDRES DAVID PALMA ALFARO and ANDREA ELIZABETH PALMA ALFARO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Urmancheev v. Ndoh, et al.
as 24-3043
Plaintiff:
ALIM S. URMANCHEEV
Defendant:
R. NDOH, P. VERA, D GROVES and others
Cruz v. Capital One
as 3:2024cv00832
Plaintiff:
Jose Cruz
Defendant:
Capital One
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Cruz v. Oliver, et al.
as 24-3013
Petitioner:
CARIM CRUZ
Respondent:
RONALD OLIVER, Substituted in Place of William Hutching per [40] Order., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA and WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, Substituted by Ronald Oliver per [40] Order.
Melendez-Cruz v. Garland
as 24-3002
Petitioner:
CERVANDO MELENDEZ-CRUZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
