Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv13032
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Neto v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
as 1:2026cv10643
Plaintiff:
Tristao Neto
Defendant:
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv10322
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv13723
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv12728
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00425
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00311
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Da Silva Neto v. Bondi
as 25-1207
Petitioner:
MELODIVO FRANCISCO DA SILVA NETO
Respondent:
PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General
Doyle v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. et al
as 3:2024cv12030
Plaintiff:
Donald Moore, Carlos Cosme Cuevas, Thomas Monahan and others
Defendant:
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. and FEDEX CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Pereira Neto, et al v. Garland
as 24-1058
Petitioner:
CONSTANTINO PEREIRA NETO and SURAYA SILVESTRE PEREIRA
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.
