Cases 1 - 10 of 96
Kersey v. Avery Dennison Pension Plan
as 1:2024cv11250
Plaintiff:
George Kersey
Defendant:
Avery Dennison Pension Plan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Kersey v. Trump
as 1:2024cv10806
Plaintiff:
George Kersey
Defendant:
Donald Trump
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Raby v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv10761
Plaintiff:
Gerald Raby
Defendant:
Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. f/k/a NewHold Investment Corp., Peter George, Mario Ramos and others
Petitioner:
Douglas Buchan, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Robert Falk
Caplan v. NH Exteriors, Inc.
as 1:2023cv12428
Plaintiff:
George Caplan
Defendant:
NH Exteriors, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Perman et al v. Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust et al
as 1:2023cv10809
Plaintiff:
Gerald A. Perman and Nessa Perman
Defendant:
Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust, Kenneth R Leibler, Robert L. Reynolds and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Gorham v. Nunez et al
as 1:2023cv10663
Plaintiff:
Keely Gorham
Defendant:
George Nunez, Brad Talley, Lindsay Oglesby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Fiorillo v. Spitalny et al
as 1:2022cv12135
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Fiorillo
Defendant:
Peter Spitalny, Michael Brier, Samuel Spitalny and others
Lu v. Saylor et al
as 1:2022cv11106
Plaintiff:
Friedrich Lu
Defendant:
F. Dennis Saylor, Jon David Levin, Patti B. Saris and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Bock v. Sloane et al
as 1:2022cv10905
Plaintiff:
Randall Bock and Pro se Litigant Randall Bock
Defendant:
Candace Lapidus Sloane and George Abraham
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Caplan v. Unknown Number of John Doe Telemarketers
as 1:2021cv11555
Plaintiff:
George Caplan
Defendant:
Unknown Number of John Doe Telemarketers
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
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.
