Cases 41 - 50 of 60
Kaufherr v. Caro et al
as 1:2012cv02201
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Kaufherr
Defendant:
Sixto R. Caro, Sharon L. Karmon, Sandra Jimenez and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Omar v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2011cv08368
Plaintiff:
Abdi Omar
Defendant:
The City of New York, Frances Caro and John Doe 1-5
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Tovar v. Indiana et al
as 1:2011cv00776
Plaintiff:
Joao Tovar
Defendant:
Robert Indiana, Simon Salama-Caro, John Gilbert and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bc
Efem v. City of New York et al
as 1:2011cv04902
Defendant:
Steven Caro, City of New York, John and Jane Doe 1 through 10 and others
Plaintiff:
Cecilia Efem
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Forbes v. City of New York et al
as 1:2011cv04808
Defendant:
Sergeant Steven Caro, Police Officer Julie Casale, City of New York and others
Plaintiff:
James Forbes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ponce et al v. Green and White Cleaners Corp. et al
as 1:2011cv03767
Plaintiff:
Arturo Ponce , Carlos Cruz and Adalberto Caro
Defendant:
Green and White Cleaners Corp. and Myung Nam Chang
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Caro et al
as 1:2010cv05893
Plaintiff:
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC
Defendant:
Marshall Caro, Walter Raquet, Indii.Com Use LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
United States of America v. Caro
as 10-282
Appellee USA:
United States of America
Defendant - Appellant:
Ramon Caro
Caro v. Stewart et al
as 1:2009cv10313
Plaintiff:
James Caro
Defendant:
Daniel Stewart, Juan Quinones and Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Acevedo et al v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2009cv09657
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Acevedo and Justin Caro
Defendant:
The City of New York, Thomas Golden and John Doe # 1-10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
