Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Chan v. Jagdfeld et al
as 1:2024cv00182
Plaintiff:
Joe Chan
Defendant:
Aaron Jagdfeld, Marcia J. Avedon, John D. Bowlin and others
DIVOC 91, LLC v. NATURAL ESSENTIALS INC. et al
as 3:2022cv00249
Plaintiff:
DIVOC 91, LLC d/b/a RIVERVIEW [RIVER] CAPITAL HOLDINGS GROUP and DIVOC 91, LLC doing business as RIVERVIEW CAPITAL HOLDINGS GROUP
Defendant:
Natural Essentials Inc., CSS INVESTMENTS INC., ARTIC [ARCTIC] HEALTH SOLUTIONS VIET NAM CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. v. SB HOSPITALITY PALM SPRINGS, LLC et al
as 2:2019cv06954
Defendant:
HANHE CHO, SB HOSPITALITY PALM SPRINGS, LLC and NAM MIN CHO
Plaintiff:
BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GODDARD SYSTEMS, INC. v. WORTMAN et al
as 2:2015cv05519
Plaintiff:
GODDARD SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant:
STEPHEN A. WORTMAN, CAROL A. WORTMAN, NOEL L. WORTMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SUPER 8 WORLDWIDE, INC. v. PAK et al
as 2:2015cv05861
Plaintiff:
SUPER 8 WORLDWIDE, INC.
Defendant:
JOHN PAK, EUNICE PAK, CY YONG HONG and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DAYS INNS WORLDWIDE, INC. v. NAM HOSPITALITY, INC. et al
as 2:2014cv05658
Plaintiff:
DAYS INNS WORLDWIDE, INC.
Defendant:
NAM HOSPITALITY, INC., PETER NAM and JUNE NAM
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
TRAN v. ALPHONSE HOTEL CORPORATION
as 2:2013cv06515
Plaintiff:
NAM T. TRAN
Defendant:
ALPHONSE HOTEL CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
FINANCE ONE, INC. v. LEE et al
as 2:2009cv01962
Plaintiff:
FINANCE ONE, INC.
Defendant:
YANG JO LEE and NAM YOUNG CHUNG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
PARKLANE, INC. et al v. KIM
as 2:2007cv06066
Plaintiff:
PARKLANE, INC., KWONG HO KEH, WAN HUI NAM and others
Defendant:
SUNG HO KIM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
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.
