Cases 11 - 20 of 60
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv03532
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv07988
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Chen v. Barr
as 19-2658
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Xing Ying Chen
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv01000
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Chen v. Sessions
as 18-2080
Petitioner:
Ying Chen, AKA Jin Liang Pan
Respondent:
Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv01719
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Yin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated et al v. SZ Chuan Story Inc. d/b/a Szechuan Story or Szechuan Story Hot Pot et al
as 1:2018cv01320
Defendant:
John Li (first name unknown) a/k/a Bo Li, ABC Corp. d/b/a Wego KTV, SZ Chuan Story Inc. d/b/a Szechuan Story or Szechuan Story Hot Pot and others
Plaintiff:
Mei Ying Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated and Yu Hua Yin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv07679
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Chen v. Sessions
as 17-2340
Petitioner:
Ying Chen
Respondent:
Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv01389
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
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.
