Cases 31 - 40 of 2,547
Buczek v. Seterus, LLC
as 24-1143
Plaintiff:
DEBORAH A. BUCZEK
Defendant:
SETERUS, LLC, sometimes also assuming the alias of PHH Mortgage, JOHN DOES, said names being fictitious parties intended being possible corporations and/or individuals known or yet to be known involved in any way with this case as Defendants, JANE DOES, said names being fictitious parties intended being possible corporations and/or individuals known or yet to be known involved in any way with this case as Defendants and others
Ruotolo v. Town of New Paltz
as 24-1109
Plaintiff:
ANGELO RUOTOLO
Defendant:
Sherrif JUAN FIGUEROA, JOHN DOE, ULSTER COUNTY and others
Gibson v. Grant
as 24-1086
Plaintiff:
DONALD GIBSON
Defendant:
Police Officer TERIQ C. GRANT, Shield No. 12175, Detective RYAN OLSEN, Shield #5992 and JOHN DOE, Kings County District Attorney (ADA)
Rosa v. Cook
as 24-1101
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER ROSA
Defendant:
MICHELLE BIELA, SANTORO, HENRY MUSHI and others
Rosa v. Cook
as 24-1062
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER ROSA
Defendant:
STEDMAN, Nurse, KATHRYN CARHART, Nurse, RALPH, Nurse and others
Chepilko v. Henry
as 24-1059
Petitioner:
SERGEI CHEPILKO
Defendant:
Police Officer SCOTT HENRY, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Sergeant TARAKUR CHOWDHURY and others
Rosa v. Doe
as 24-1044
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER ROSA
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, Commissioner, JOHN DOE, Warden, VIKI S. BLUMBERG, Medical Doctor and others
Scales v. Doe
as 24-1026
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM SCALES
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, Police Officers, 23rd Precinct
Avalon Holdings Corporation v. Gentile
as 24-999
Plaintiff:
AVALON HOLDINGS CORPORATION
Defendant:
GUY GENTILE, MINTBROKER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and JOHN DOES 1 THRU 10
Wanjuan Media (Tianjin) Co. LTD v. Amazon.com, Inc.
as 24-899
Plaintiff:
WANJUAN MEDIA (TIANJIN) CO. LTD and Pilot Film And Television Media (Tianjin) Co., LTD.
Defendant:
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5
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.
