Cases 1 - 10 of 542
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01857
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Emrit v. United States Embassy of Poland et al
as 1:2024cv00455
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit Presidential Candidate Number P60005535; also known as (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America and (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee
Defendant:
United States Embassy of Poland, Embassy of Poland in the United States, State Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Emrit v. United States Embassy of Poland et al
as 3:2024cv00613
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit Presidential Candidate Number P60005535; also known as (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America and (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee
Defendant:
United States Embassy of Poland, Embassy of Poland in the United States, State Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
EMRIT v. UNITED STATES EMBASSY OF POLAND et al
as 3:2024cv04656
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT Presidential Canidate Number P60005535 & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 doing business as UNITES EMRITS OF AMERICA
Defendant:
UNITED STATES EMBASSY OF POLAND, EMBASSY OF POLAND IN THE UNITED STATES, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NAFTALOVICH v. U.S. SUPREME COURT
as 2:2024cv04610
Plaintiff:
DANIEL NAFTALOVICH
Defendant:
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Andy Kim, et al v. Christine Hanlon, et al
as 24-1593
Plaintiff:
ANDY KIM, in his personal capacity as a candidate for U.S. Senate, ANDY KIM FOR NEW JERSEY, SARAH SCHOENGOOD and others
Defendant:
CHRISTINE G. HANLON, in her official capacity as Monmouth County Clerk, SCOTT M. COLABELLA, in his official capacity as Ocean County Clerk, PAULA SOLLAMI COVELLO, in her official capacity as Mercer County Clerk and others
Intervenor:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE
Andy Kim, et al v. Christine Hanlon, et al
as 24-1602
Plaintiff:
ANDY KIM, in his personal capacity as a candidate for U.S. Senate, ANDY KIM FOR NEW JERSEY, SARAH SCHOENGOOD and others
Defendant:
CHRISTINE G. HANLON, in her official capacity as Monmouth County Clerk, SCOTT M. COLABELLA, in his official capacity as Ocean County Clerk, PAULA SOLLAMI COVELLO, in her official capacity as Mercer County Clerk and others
Intervenor:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE
Andy Kim, et al v. Christine Hanlon, et al
as 24-1601
Plaintiff:
ANDY KIM, in his personal capacity as a candidate for U.S. Senate, ANDY KIM FOR NEW JERSEY, SARAH SCHOENGOOD and others
Defendant:
CHRISTINE G. HANLON, in hr official capacity as Monmouth County Clerk, SCOTT M. COLABELLA, in his official capacity as Ocean County Clerk, PAULA SOLLAMI COVELLO, in her official capacity as Mercer County Clerk and others
Intervenor:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE
Andy Kim, et al v. Christine Hanlon, et al
as 24-1594
Plaintiff:
ANDY KIM, in his personal capacity as a candidate for U.S. Senate, ANDY KIM FOR NEW JERSEY, SARAH SCHOENGOOD and others
Defendant:
SCOTT M. COLABELLA, in his official capacity as Ocean County Clerk, PAULA SOLLAMI COVELLO, in her official capacity as Mercer County Clerk, MARY H. MELFI, in her capacity as Hunterdon County Clerk and others
Intervenor:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE
TURNER v. PAYONEER et al
as 1:2024cv04081
Plaintiff:
TERRANCE TURNER
Defendant:
PAYONEER, PAYONEER GLOBAL INC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
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.
