Cases 1 - 10 of 26
Freudenberg v. County Of Orange et al
as 7:2023cv00847
Plaintiff:
Michelle Freudenberg, as Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Freudenberg and Michelle Freudenberg
Defendant:
County Of Orange, Orange County Sheriff's Office, Wellpath, LLC (f/k/a Correct Care Solutions, LLC and/or New York Correct Care Solutions Medical Services PC) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 mm Notice of Removal - Medical Malpractice
Capobianco et al v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2021cv06125
Plaintiff:
Bridget Capobianco, Alex Leroy, Christian Batista and others
Defendant:
The City of New York, Mayor Bill De Blasio, Marcos Gonzalez Solas, Director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
McGill et al v. City Of New York et al
as 1:2021cv08619
Plaintiff:
Jada McGill and Angie Velez
Defendant:
City Of New York, Mayor Bill De Blasio, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Raydo v. City of New York
as 20-3685
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang
Defendant:
New York City Police Officer John Doe #1, individually, the names "John Doe" being fictitious as their complete names and/or current identities are presently unknown and New York City Police Officers John and Jane Does #2-#10, individually, the names John Doe" and "Jane Doe" being fictitious as their complete names and/or current identities are presently unknown
Defendant / Appellee:
New York City Police Officer Eric Rodriguez, individually and City of New York
Walker v. City of Buffalo et al
as 1:2020cv00160
Defendant:
Officer John Doe 2-10, Officer John Doe 1, City of Buffalo and others
Plaintiff:
Raymond L Walker, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Guillermo et al v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al
as 1:2020cv00452
Plaintiff:
Awilda Cabrera and Andres Guillermo
Defendant:
New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission Officer "John Doe #21" with Shield No. 1151, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission Police Officers "John Doe #22-30," said names being fictitious and presently unknown, intended to identify the arresting officers from the Ne, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roundtree v. NYC et al
as 1:2019cv02475
Defendant:
Dr. Arkady-Cherchever, NY Health & Hospitals, Dr. San Jose and others
Plaintiff:
Juel Roundtree
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Basile v. New York City, NY
as 19-386
Defendant:
New York City Police Officer James P. O'Neill, in his personal and official capacity as Chief of Police of New York City (the "Commissioner") was, upon information and belief, the New York City Police Commissioner at all the times relevant to this co, John Does 2-10, individually and in their capacities as employees and/or agents of The Madison Square Garden Company and Angele Delrosso, in her individual and official capacity as an employee, or former employee of the Madison Square Garden Company
Defendant / Appellee:
John Does 1-9, individually and in their capacities as employees and/or agents of the Madison Square Garden Company, Madison Square Garden Company, an entity formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, New York City Police Officer William Dottavio, Shield 994, in his official and individual capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Christopher Basile
Raydo et al v. City of New York et al
as 1:2018cv10919
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider:
John and Jane Does #2-10, P.O. Eric Rodriguez and Officer John Doe #1
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Police Officers John and Jane Does #2-#10, New York City Police Officer John Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Lang and Melanie Raydo
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Basile v. New York City, NY et al
as 1:2017cv09060
Plaintiff:
Christopher Basile
Defendant:
New York City, NY, James P. O'Neill, Matthew Winters and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
