Cases 41 - 50 of 70
Velasquez v. Hairy Monk, Corp. et al
as 1:2013cv00464
Plaintiff:
Macario Velasquez
Defendant:
Hairy Monk, Corp. and John Cavanagh
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Monk v. United States of America
as 1:2012cv04350
Petitioner:
Damon Monk
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Williams et al
as 3:2012cv01068
Plaintiff:
Securities & Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Jerry S. Williams, Monk's Den, LLC and First In Awareness, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77
Monk et al v. City of New York et al
as 1:2012cv02933
Defendant:
John Aconi, City of New York, Department of Juvenile Justice and others
Plaintiff:
Kecia Monk and Larissa Royster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gonzalez v. Hairy Monk, Corp. et al
as 1:2012cv04196
Plaintiff:
Pablo Gonzalez
Defendant:
Hairy Monk, Corp. and John Cavanagh
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00538
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Morales v. Hairy Monk Corp. et al
as 1:2012cv02091
Plaintiff:
Juan Carlos Morales
Defendant:
Hairy Monk Corp., John Hayes and John Cavanagh
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
United States of America v. Monk
as 12-662
Appellee USA:
United States of America
Defendant:
Kareem West, Jamal Windley and Darren Finklea
Defendant - Appellant:
Damon Monk
United States of America v. Colon et al (Angel Colon)
as 12-623
Appellee USA:
United States of America
Defendant:
Mark Colon, AKA Marcos, AKA Mono, AKA Father, AKA Woody, Gabriel Boria, AKA Indio, Benny Rosario, AKA Benny Blanco and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Angel Colon, AKA "A"
Monk et al v. Labelle
as 1:2011cv09258
Plaintiff:
Kevin Monk and Roseanna Monk
Defendant:
Patti Labelle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
