Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Eaves v. Betfair Interactive US, LLC et al
as 2:2024cv01336
Defendant:
D Flutter Entertainment PLC, FANDUEL INC., Betfair Interactive US, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY EAVES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Eaves v. Belfair Interactive US LLC et al
as 2:2024cv01171
Defendant:
FANDUEL INC., NEW YORK GAMING COMMISSION, VALLEY FORGE CASINO AND RESORT and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY B. EAVES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
EAVES v. THE STARS GROUP, US et al
as 3:2024cv08108
Defendant:
FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT P.L.C., NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, MOUNT AIRY #1, LLC doing business as MOUNT AIRY CASINO & RESORT and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY BRYANT EAVES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv14336
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv14336
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1276
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1271
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1275
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, FANDUEL and SUBWAY
EMRIT v. BARKLEY et al
as 2:2023cv00156
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Interstate Commerce Act
EMRIT v. BARKLEY et al
as 2:2023cv00034
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
