Cases 1 - 10 of 28
MPOY v. JOHN BURST et al
as 1:2023cv03027
Plaintiff:
BRUNO K. MPOY
Defendant:
JOHN BURST, DONIELLE POWE and MURIEL BOWSER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
USA v. Bruno Cua
as 23-3137
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Bruno Joseph Cua
MPOY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2022cv02501
Plaintiff:
BRUNO K. MPOY
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JOHN BURST and DONIELLE POWE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2022cv02502
Plaintiff:
BRUNO K. MPOY and NO PARTY
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
VASQUEZ BRUNO v. CLEAN ADVANTAGE CORPORATION
as 1:2022cv00816
Plaintiff:
Digna Vasquez Bruno
Defendant:
Clean Advantage Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
MPOY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT et al
as 1:2021cv02447
Plaintiff:
BRUNO K. MPOY
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT and US BANCORP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01874
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
COSTA v. HAYMAN WOODWARD, PLLC et al
as 1:2021cv00666
Defendant:
HAYMAN WOODWARD, PLLC and HAYMAN WOODWARD HOLDINGS CORP
Plaintiff:
LUCAS PONZONI, FELIPE MARTINA, MARCEL MOREIRA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
PERALES v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al
as 1:2019cv03315
Defendant:
DONALD ALWAY, JEREMY WILTZ, GREGORY D. COX and others
Plaintiff:
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Oscar Rodriguez, et al v. Department of the Air Force, et al
as 19-5216
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. and Charles Roberson
Defendant / Appellee:
Department of the Air Force, Michael Sovitsky, an officer of the United States Air Force, Joe Bruno, an officer of the United States Air Force and others
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.
