Cases 1 - 10 of 397
Urve Maggitti v. Bret Binder, et al
as 24-1169
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
BRET M. BINDER, DEBRA RYAN, DANIEL E. ROLAND and others
Urve Maggitti v. Bret Binder, et al
as 23-3277
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
BRET M. BINDER, DEBRA RYAN, DANIEL E. ROLAND and others
Charles Adler, et al v. Gruma Corporation, et al
as 23-3177
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES L. ADLER, GRANT ADLER and CM ADLER LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
GRUMA CORP, DBA Mission Foods and GUERRERO MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS, Etc.
JONES v. LUMPKIN
as 2:2023cv04644
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER-LOREN JONES
Defendant:
CHARLES L. LUMPKIN, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JONES v. LUMPKIN
as 2:2023cv04688
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LOREN JONES
Defendant:
CHARLES L. LUMPKIN, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MAGGITTI v. HON. BRET M. BINDER et al
as 2:2023cv02273
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
HON. BRET M. BINDER, HON. ANTHONY T. VERWEY, HON. WILLIAM P. MAHON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
EL et al v. KELSEY et al
as 1:2023cv01458
Plaintiff:
NOBLE CHRISTO EL, TRE N VISCO, LEONARD LUDWIGSEN, JR and others
Defendant:
DAVID KELSEY (in his individual and official capacity) doing business as DAVID KELSEY, WARDEN, K. BROWN, "JOHN" CHARLETON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ADLER et al v. GRUMA CORPORATION et al
as 3:2022cv06598
Plaintiff:
CHARLES L. ADLER, GRANT ADLER and C.M. ADLER, LLC
Defendant:
GRUMA CORPORATION d/b/a MISSION FOODS, GUERRERO MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS, GRUMA CORPORATION doing business as MISSION FOODS and GUERRERO MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS, ETC.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
JOHNSON-LARKE v. STILL et al
as 2:2022cv04087
Defendant:
SONJO S STILL, SONJA STILL, CHARLES L DAVIS and others
Plaintiff:
CHERYL JOHNSON-LARKE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
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.
