Cases 1 - 10 of 228
Sun v. Mo et al
as 1:2024cv03630
Plaintiff:
Yi Sun
Defendant:
Hugh H MO, Tsai Chung Chao, New York City Police Department : and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Google LLC v. Sun et al
as 1:2024cv02559
Defendant:
Yunfeng Sun, Hongnam Cheung, Alphonse Sun and others
Plaintiff:
Google LLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Gervat v. Freda et al
as 1:2024cv01983
Plaintiff:
Hugues Gervat
Defendant:
Fabrizio Freda, Ronald S. Lauder, Leonard A. Lauder and others
United States of America v. Sun (Wang)
as 24-461
Defendant:
YING SUN, FRANK LIU, DIELONG WU and others
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Pacella v. Hesai Group et al
as 1:2024cv00876
Plaintiff:
Alan Pacella
Petitioner:
King Ho Wong and Michael Dee
Defendant:
Hesai Group, Yifan Li, Louis T. Hsieh and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Sun et al v. Mo et al
as 1:2023cv08736
Plaintiff:
Yi Sun
Defendant:
Hugh H Mo, Tsai Chung Chao, New York City Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Sun-Air of Scandinavia A/S v. Jet Support Services, Inc.
as 3:2023mc00100
Plaintiff:
Sun-Air of Scandinavia A/S
Defendant:
Jet Support Services, Inc.
Not Classified By Court:
Pratt & Whitney Engine Services and Pratt & Whitney Canada Customer Service Centre Europe
Sun-Air of Scandinavia A/S v. Jet Support Services, Inc.
as 3:2023mc00097
Plaintiff:
SUN-AIR of SCANDINAVIA A/S
Defendant:
JET SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
Not Classified By Court:
MTU Aero Engines
In re: Sandoz Canada Inc. et al
as 3:2023mc00087
Petitioner:
Sandoz Canada Inc
In Re:
Sun Pharma Canada Inc
Not Classified By Court:
Rolf Grempler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Letter rogatory - appointment
Bryan v. Kim et al
as 1:2023cv07445
Plaintiff:
Aimee Bryan
Defendant:
Bom Suk Kim, Neil Mehta, Benjamin Sun and others
Nominal Defendant:
Coupang, Inc.
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.
