US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Civil Rights Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 141
WEST v. NICHOLAS ANTILL, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv01577
Plaintiff:
INDIA Y. WEST
Defendant:
NICHOLAS ANTILL, LLC and BRENDA BRYSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
WEST v. ANTILL et al
as 2:2016cv01549
Plaintiff:
INDIA Y. WEST
Defendant:
NICHOLAS ANTILL and BRENDA BRYSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KORMANIK et al
as 3:2016cv00210
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ROBERT KORMANIK and KINAMROK, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
IMMEL et al v. AMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al
as 2:2016cv01465
Plaintiff:
VICTORIA IMMEL and FAIR HOUSING PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER PITTSBURGH
Defendant:
AMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and FIFTH-NEVILLE APTS INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
TRASK v. SCARCELLI
as 2:2016cv00999
Plaintiff:
ASHLY TRASK
Defendant:
JAY SCARCELLI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
MAJESKI et al v. EDGETOWNE APARTMENTS UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
as 2:2016cv00940
Plaintiff:
DAVID MAJESKI , MARY MAJESKI and FAIR HOUSING PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER PITTSBURGH, INC.
Defendant:
EDGETOWNE APARTMENTS UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
BIRNBAUM v. SENIOR CARE NETWORK, INC. et al
as 2:2016cv00909
Plaintiff:
VICTORIA BIRNBAUM
Defendant:
SENIOR CARE NETWORK, INC. , CASSANDRA LAW , TRACY COLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
BELL v. MARSHALL
as 1:2016cv00120
Plaintiff:
ROBIN BELL
Defendant:
THERESA MARSHALL and SETH MARSHALL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Housing Discrimination
BRANDYWINE AGENCY et al v. POSEY et al
as 2:2016cv00394
Plaintiff:
BRANDYWINE AGENCY and SERENA KUMAR
Defendant:
HERMAN POSEY, JR. and YVONNE POSEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DIAZ v. AMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al
as 2:2016cv00179
Plaintiff:
YASMIN DIAZ
Defendant:
AMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and AMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.
