Cases 1 - 10 of 41
Rolon v. City of New York
as 24-1439
Plaintiff:
KAYLA ROLON, COREY GILZEAN, MICHAEL HERNANDEZ and others
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Mayor BILL DE BLASIO and others
Intervenor:
POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC.
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Liu
as 24-1282
Plaintiff:
HUZHOU HUIRONGSHENG EQUITY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, HUZHOU HUIHENGYING EQUITY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP and HUZHOU CHUANGTAI RONGYUAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP
Defendant:
DUO LIU, ST. TOME LLC., ST. FORTUNE GROUP LLC. and others
Heredia v. City of New York
as 24-1185
Plaintiff:
DIEGO HEREDIA
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Det. THOMAS DONEGAN and others
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL v. City of New York
as 22-3099
Petitioner:
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of its members, Renae Mascol, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated individuals and Luis Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated individuals
Respondent:
City of New York, New York City Fire Department, Department of Citywide Administrative Services and others
Women of Color for Equal Justice v. The City of New York
as 22-3065
Plaintiff:
Jo Saint-George, Esq.
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Women of Color For Equal Justice, Remo Dello Ioio, Elizabeth Loiacono and others
Defendant / Appellee:
City of New York, Eric L. Adams, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and others
Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
as 22-404
Petitioner:
The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan Retirement Committee, John Does 1-20 and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Respondent:
Leonid Falberg, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan
Canfield v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, In
as 21-3086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Latrecia Onunkwor, individually and individually and for her individual account damages on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, David Ostermeyer, individually and individually and for his individual account damages on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Diana Weaver, individually and individually and for her individual account damages on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN and others
Defendant / Appellee:
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc., 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and others
Defendant:
Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, Inc. and John Does, 1-20
Mendon v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, In
as 21-3088
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Mark Mendon, individually and for his individual account damages on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401 (K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN and Jill Pehlman, individually and for her individual account damages on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401 (K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN
Defendant / Appellee:
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc., 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and others
Defendant:
Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, Inc. and John Does, 1-20
Jones v. McGrath
as 21-1884
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Daniel Jones
Defendant / Appellee:
Annie Mane McGrath, Deputy Commissioner, Joseph Franchini, Assistant Commissioner, John Does/Jane Does (1-20), Movenemtn and Control Officer and others
Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A. v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
as 21-643
Defendant / Appellee:
Pacorini Metals Vlissingen B.V., Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Henry Bath LLC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, Custom Aluminum Products, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, Seating Constructors USA, Inc., Admiral Beverage Corporation and others
Defendant:
London Metal Exchange Limited, Glencore Xstrata Incorporated, Glencore UK Ltd 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.
