Cases 51 - 60 of 170
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv15468
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Forty Four Capital, LLC et al v. Pro Line Manufacturing Co., LLC et al
as 1:2018cv02015
Plaintiff:
Forty Four Capital, LLC and Rudis Holdings, LLC
Defendant:
Samsung C&T America, Inc., Pro Line Manufacturing Co., LLC, Peter Ryu and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
RUDY v. JOHN DOE et al
as 1:2018cv10387
Plaintiff:
ROBERT JOHN RUDY
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, N.J. D.O.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACOBSEN v. TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE et al
as 2:2018cv08955
Plaintiff:
IAN JACOBSEN
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE and RUDY APPELMANN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FREW v. KMART CORPORATION
as 3:2017cv09994
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY FREW
Defendant:
RUDY FORESTER, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
DAVIS v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2017cv01152
Petitioner:
RUDY DAVIS
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA, ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HARVEY v. DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE et al
as 1:2017cv04648
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND D HARVEY
Defendant:
DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, MATTHEW MASSING and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD et al v. THE CITY OF VINELAND et al
as 1:2017cv01452
Plaintiff:
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD and DANA GERMAN-BUNTON
Defendant:
THE CITY OF VINELAND , CHIEF RUDY BEU , JOH DOE POLICE OFFICERS 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WAGNER v. EAGLE TANK LINE, LLC et al
as 3:2017cv01260
Defendant:
EAGLE TANK LINE, LLC and RUDY BALDEO
Plaintiff:
RYAN WAGNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rudy v. Colvin
as 3:2016cv01687
Plaintiff:
David Rudy
Defendant:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.
