Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Ronald Emrit v. Sean Combs, et al
as 24-1269
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN P DIDDY COMBS, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS
EMRIT v. COMBS et al
as 2:2024cv00129
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN P DIDDY COMBS, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv06502
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03150
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02834
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
COMBS-HARRIS et al v. CARVANA LLC
as 2:2022cv04845
Plaintiff:
JARROD COMBS-HARRIS and REGINALD COMBS-HARRIS
Petitioner:
REGINALD COMBS-KARRIS
Defendant:
CARVANA LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
COMBS-HARRIS et al v. CARVANA LLC
as 2:2022cv04843
Plaintiff:
REGINALD COMBS-HARRIS and JARROD COMBS-HARRIS
Defendant:
CARVANA LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Basavaraj Hooli v. Larry Mitcham, et al
as 22-1984
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BASAVARAJ HOOLI
Defendant:
LARRY MITCHAM, Administrator, City of Zebulon, GA
Defendant / Appellee:
TODD COMBS, President & CEO, Geico InsuranceCompany
Hooli v. Mitcham et al
as 1:2021cv00702
Defendant:
Todd Combs and Larry Mitcham
Plaintiff:
Basavaraj Hooli
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
SMITH et al v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY et al
as 2:2019cv01672
Defendant:
GLEN THOMSON, WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY, GENE KARCH and others
Plaintiff:
SALLY SMITH, JAMES SMITH, ANTOINETTE MACZKO 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.
