Cases 71 - 80 of 1,006
E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company v. Baker
as 22-2616
Petitioner:
E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
Respondent:
Michele Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Angela Corbett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Daniel Schuttig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and others
Coffman v. Stonemor Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08716
Plaintiff:
Catherine Coffman
Defendant:
Stonemor Inc., Andrew Axelrod, David Miller and others
Scott v. EVO Payments, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08600
Plaintiff:
Robert Scott
Defendant:
EVO Payments, Inc., James G. Kelly, Mark A. Chancy and others
Moore v. EVO Payments, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08518
Plaintiff:
Jon Moore
Defendant:
EVO Payments, Inc., Rafik R. Sidhom, James G. Kelly and others
Montgomery v. iRobot Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv08495
Plaintiff:
Sean Montgomery
Defendant:
iRobot Corporation, Colin Angle, Mohamad Ali and others
Moore v. iRobot Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv08445
Plaintiff:
Jon Moore
Defendant:
iRobot Corporation, Colin Angle, Mohamad Ali and others
Yang et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al
as 1:2022cv08264
Plaintiff:
Liang Yang and Lingyun Yang
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Waterman v. EVO Payments, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08090
Plaintiff:
Marc Waterman
Defendant:
EVO Payments, Inc., Mark A. Chancy, Vahe A. Dombalagian and others
Wolfson v. EVO Payments, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08104
Plaintiff:
Barbara Wolfson
Defendant:
EVO Payments, Inc., James G. Kelly, Rafik R. Sidhom and others
Whitfield v. EVO Payments, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv08085
Plaintiff:
Matthew Whitfield
Defendant:
EVO Payments, Inc., Mark A. Chancy, Vahe A. Dombalagian 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.
