Cases 81 - 90 of 5,008
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00033
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
NPS LLC v. Signature Sports Marketing LLC
as 4:2024cv00118
Plaintiff:
NPS LLC
Defendant:
Signature Sports Marketing LLC
Cause Of Action: 27 U.S.C. § 185 Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2024cv00067
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00034
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Bond v. Folsom Insurance Agency LLC
as 1:2024cv00075
Plaintiff:
Joseph Bond
Defendant:
Folsom Insurance Agency LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Hilliard v. Sheriff, Smith County
as 5:2021cv00036
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions Inc et al
as 2:2024mc00002
Plaintiff:
STA Group LLC
Petitioner:
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Defendant:
Jeff Lucas, Peter Fritz, Dillon Kane Group and others
Respondent:
Wes Wells and Steve Spanglo
Beauchamp v. USHealth Advisors, LLC
as 4:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Aaron A. Beauchamp
Defendant:
USHealth Advisors, L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Up In Smoke, Inc. et al
as 4:2023cv01140
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Up In Smoke, Inc. d/b/a Up In Smoke and d/b/a Up In Smoke Frisco, Daniel L. Schmitt and Carol A. Schmitt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
