Cases 1 - 10 of 83
Newton v. G.E.O Group, Inc et al
as 3:2024cv00413
Plaintiff:
Earl Nicholas Newton
Defendant:
G.E.O Group, Inc, C. O. Fields, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Han et al v. May Dynasty LLC et al
as 1:2024cv00654
Plaintiff:
Feng Shan Han and Le Zhang
Defendant:
May Dynasty LLC doing business as Crazy Dumpling and Qun Shen
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00097
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01647
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Senteno v. Jung et al
as 1:2023cv01271
Plaintiff:
Alfonso Senteno
Defendant:
May Jung and BKMJ, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01218
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
May v. Five Guys Enterprises, LLC
as 1:2023cv00029
Plaintiff:
Brittany May
Defendant:
Five Guys Enterprises, LLC
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Erika Ranck, Lauren Turner and Stephen Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Verragio, Ltd. v. May Jewelers, Inc.
as 1:2022cv01337
Plaintiff:
Verragio, Ltd.
Defendant:
May Jewelers, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
May et al v. M.R. Associates, L.P.
as 1:2022cv00986
Plaintiff:
Caroline May, Benjamin Matthew-Blake Hall, Caroline Hall and others
Defendant:
M.R. Associates, L.P. and Stacy West
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601 Fair Housing Act
May v. Buttigieg
as 1:2022cv00908
Plaintiff:
Jackquline A May
Defendant:
Pete Buttigieg
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
