Cases 21 - 30 of 51
GATSON v. O'CONNOR et al
as 3:2017cv02712
Plaintiff:
MALCOLM GATSON
Defendant:
AMY O'CONNOR and ANTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GATSON v. ANTON
as 3:2017cv02710
Plaintiff:
MALCOLM GATSON
Defendant:
ANTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH v. RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
as 3:2016cv03789
Plaintiff:
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH
Defendant:
RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
PURISIMA v. TD BANK et al
as 1:2016cv02906
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
TD BANK, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA and DOES 1-1.3 BILLION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
PURISIMA v. HOBOKEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER et al
as 2:2016cv02195
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
HOBOKEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, CARE POINT HEALTH, HEATHER KOTUSKI, MD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ZAVODCHIKO et al
as 2:2016cv00845
Plaintiff:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Defendant:
EVEGENII ZAVODCHIKO, EXTRA TRADING COMPANY, ANDREY BOKAREV and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77
ANTONE v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv00198
Plaintiff:
CALVIN ANTONE
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06666
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
HERRON et al v. PODLESAK et al
as 3:2014cv06660
Plaintiff:
SCOTT HERRON and MORONA VIDRINE
Defendant:
DENNIS PODLESAK, DAVID J. MAZZO, B. JEFFERSON CLARK and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
TUCKER v. PODLESAK et al
as 3:2014cv05897
Plaintiff:
DEAN P. TUCKER
Defendant:
DENNIS PODLESAK, DAVID J. MAZZO, B. JEFFERSON CLARK and others
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.
