Cases 21 - 30 of 1,865
Weiss v. Diamondback Energy, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv02689
Plaintiff:
Steven Weiss
Defendant:
Diamondback Energy, Inc., Travis D. Stice, Vincent K. Brooks and others
United States of America v. Carter
as 24-873
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
STEVEN CARTER
Sibley v. Watches
as 24-855
Plaintiff:
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
Defendant:
CHAUNCEY J. WATCHES, KATHLEEN HOCHUL, LETITIA JAMES and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02458
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Indiana Public Retirement System v. Agilon Health, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv02506
Plaintiff:
Indiana Public Retirement System
Defendant:
agilon health, inc., Steven J. Sell, Timothy S. Bensley and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Weiss v. Kaman Corporation et al
as 3:2024cv00512
Plaintiff:
Steven Weiss
Defendant:
Kaman Corporation, Aisha M. Barry, A. William Higgins and others
Interested Party:
Matthew Jones
Wang v. National Association of Realtors et al
as 1:2024cv02371
Plaintiff:
Dr Hao Zhe Wang and Hao Zhe Wang
Defendant:
National Association of Realtors, The Real Estate Board of New York, Inc., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
Bellino v. Tallarico
as 24-763
Defendant:
STEVEN VICTOR TALLARICO and Steven Tyler
Plaintiff:
JEANNE BELLINO
Saigua-Orozco v. Garland
as 24-741
Petitioner:
BELGICA ELIZABETH SAIGUA-OROZCO, LUIS ALFREDO LEMA-LEMA, JORDY SAID LEMA-SAIGUA and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Idlibi v. Connecticut Department of Public Health
as 24-720
Plaintiff:
AMMAR IDLIBI
Defendant:
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, CONNECTICUT STATE DENTAL COMMISSION, DAVID TILLES, in their official and personal capacities 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.
