Cases 1 - 10 of 66
GEICO A/S/O JAMES MARRONE v. U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL et al
as 2:2024cv02391
Plaintiff:
GEICO A/S/O JAMES MARRONE
Defendant:
U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL and JESSICA PERONE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv02351
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv02697
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Guzman v. USA et al
as 1:2022cv00036
Plaintiff:
Cristina M Guzman
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 781 Forfeiture
Ferreras v. USA et al
as 1:2022cv00035
Plaintiff:
Dionerca P Ferreras
Defendant:
United States of America and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 781 Forfeiture
PALMER BIEZUP & HENDERSON LLP v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
as 2:2021cv02225
Plaintiff:
PALMER BIEZUP & HENDERSON LLP
Defendant:
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Hoffmann v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
as 2:2020cv06427
Plaintiff:
Karen L. Hoffmann
Defendant:
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o SANDRA R. ABRAMSON v. AUST et al
as 2:2020cv12010
Plaintiff:
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o SANDRA R. ABRAMSON
Defendant:
MATTHEW T. AUST and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2020cv00628
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv15327
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
