Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-2206
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv02860
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
CHAUDHARY v. PENNEY et al
as 3:2020cv18529
Defendant:
Holmdel Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., Robert P Penney, RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER and others
Plaintiff:
Marzia Chaudhary
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BHATT v. CARTMELL et al
as 2:2017cv06183
Plaintiff:
CHAULA S. BHATT
Defendant:
EMILY CARTMELL, CHRISTOPHER GRAMICCIONI, JOHN JAY HOFFMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv01062
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv00439
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Ines Lomando v. USA, et al
as 11-1957
Plaintiff - Appellant:
INES LOMANDO, as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Laura Lomando, deceased
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STEPHANIE REYNOLDS, M.D., TREVOR TALBERT, M.D. and others
F.A. DAVIS COMPANY v. CLARKE et al
as 2:2010cv00622
Plaintiff:
F.A. DAVIS COMPANY
Defendant:
JOE B. CLARKE, JR, SHIRLEY C. HOEL, THE ESTATE OF JOHN KING and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER et al v. F.A. DAVIS COMPANY
as 2:2008cv05279
Plaintiff:
RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, JOHN KING and others
Defendant:
F.A. DAVIS COMPANY
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER et al v. F.A. DAVIS COMPANY
as 3:2008cv03770
Plaintiff:
RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, JOHN KING, JOE B. CLARK, JR and others
Defendant:
F.A. DAVIS COMPANY
Cause Of Action: Federal 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.
