Cases 1 - 10 of 307
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06111
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Abdush Dubose, et al v. Attorney General United States of America, et al
as 24-1815
Plaintiff:
ABDUSH DUBOSE, ZUMAR DUBOSE and KARIEM BASEER DUBOSE
Defendant:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06009
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
DUBOSE et al v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 2:2024cv01553
Plaintiff:
ZUMAR DUBOSE, ABDUSH DUBOSE and KARIEM DUBOSE
Defendant:
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC and CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DUBOSE et al v. U.S ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 2:2024cv01542
Plaintiff:
ABDUSH DUBOSE, ZUMAR DUBOSE and KARIEM DUBOSE
Defendant:
U.S ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Raj Patel v. United Parcel Services
as 24-1542
Plaintiff:
RAJ K. PATEL
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
United Parcel Service Inc v. NLRB
as 24-1530
Petitioner:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor:
ROBERT C. ATKINSON, JR.
NLRB v. United Parcel Service Inc
as 24-1531
Petitioner:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor:
ROBERT C. ATKINSON, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC
Terri Lauchle v. United Parcel Service
as 24-1487
Plaintiff:
TERRI LAUCHLE
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Terri Lauchle v. United Parcel Service
as 24-1488
Plaintiff:
TERRI LAUCHLE
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Appellant:
GREGORY A. STAPP
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.
