Cases 31 - 40 of 66
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2019cv01732
Defendant:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, MICHAEL R. POMPEO and others
Plaintiff:
MOHAMMED BENNIS TALEB and NO PARTY
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329
TALEB v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
as 1:2019cv01739
Defendant:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, MICHAEL R. POMPEO, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN and others
Plaintiff:
MOHAMMED BENNIS TALEB
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329
BAILEY v. AZAR et al
as 1:2019cv01721
Plaintiff:
BENNY RAY BAILEY
Defendant:
ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, JOANNE M. CHIEDI and ALEX M. AZAR, II
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
BACCHUS v. MCP TITLE SERVICES, LLC
as 1:2018cv01015
Plaintiff:
BENNIE D. BACCHUS
Defendant:
MCP TITLE SERVICES, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BOLD ALLIANCE et al v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION et al
as 1:2017cv01822
Plaintiff:
BOLD ALLIANCE , BOLD EDUCATION FUND , FRIENDS OF NELSON COUNTY and others
Defendant:
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, NEIL CHATTERJEE, CHERYL A. LAFLEUR and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
CLOUD v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2017cv00316
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
BENNIE CLOUD
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0504
MULLINS v. DESALVO
as 1:2016cv01964
Defendant:
KAREN DESALVO
Plaintiff:
BENNIE MULLINS, JR.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
DOE et al v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al
as 1:2016mc01195
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE, 1 and JANE DOE, 2
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK and BENNY SANTIAGO
Movant:
MOSS GROUP
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
JESSUP v. PROGRESSIVE FUNDING et al
as 1:2015cv01214
Plaintiff:
BENNIE JESSUP
Defendant:
PROGRESSIVE FUNDING and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv01940
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
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.
