Cases 31 - 40 of 57
AVRAHAM v. GOLDEN et al
as 2:2018cv11795
Defendant:
SPENCER GOLDEN and SARAH MCCLATCHY
Plaintiff:
CARLY AVRAHAM
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
LAUGHLIN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP et al
as 2:2018cv08098
Plaintiff:
CARLI LAUGHLIN
Defendant:
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ASTRAZENECA LP, MERCK & CO. INC. D/B/A MERCK, SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
OLIVANT et al v. VARGAS et al
as 2:2018mc00069
Movant:
CARLIE OLIVANT , BRENDA LOTT and GAIL SLOMINE
Respondent:
OMAR VARGAS, ROBERT BERTONE, MICHELLE HARRIS and others
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash
Type:
Other Statutes
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00004
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv01642
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
BOOS v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
as 5:2017cv05686
Plaintiff:
CARLY BOOS
Defendant:
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
NORDSTRUM et al v. MYLAN, INC. et al
as 2:2017cv02401
Plaintiff:
ANGIE NORDSTRUM and CARLY BOWERSOCK
Defendant:
MYLAN, INC., MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P., PFIZER, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
CARLY MACDONALD v. TARGET CORPORATION et al
as 3:2017cv01940
Plaintiff:
CARLY MACDONALD
Defendant:
TARGET CORPORATION , XYZ PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, ABC ASSOCIATIONS 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
McElroy v. McElroy et al
as 1:2017cv00230
Plaintiff:
Patrick B. McElroy
Defendant:
Steffani E. McElroy, Lebanon County, Kelli Scorzetti and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KOUKOS et al v. CHESTER COUNTY et al
as 2:2016cv04602
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER KOUKOS and CARLY KOUKOS
Defendant:
CHESTER COUNTY, PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC. , JENICE ABNEY 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.
