Cases 11 - 20 of 107
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00264
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Blackburn et al v. Novavax, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv01417
Plaintiff:
Charles R. Blackburn and Michele Rosati
Defendant:
Novavax, Inc., Stanley C. Erck, Gregory F. Covino and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Snyder v. Erck et al
as 8:2022cv01415
Plaintiff:
Amy Snyder
Defendant:
Stanley C. Erck, John J. Trizzino, Gregory M. Glenn and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
McManus v. USA
as 3:2022cv00250
Petitioner:
Cameron Jamal McManus
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
McManus v. Department of Homeland Security et al
as 1:2022cv00346
Plaintiff:
Judd McManus
Defendant:
Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Breach of Contract
McManus vs U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
as 1:2022cv00345
Plaintiff:
Judd McManus
Defendant:
U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
McManus v. SFF Hazelton Warden
as 3:2022cv00054
Petitioner:
Harley Kathryn McManus
Respondent:
SFF Hazelton Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
McManus v. SFF Hazelton
as 3:2022cv00040
Petitioner:
Harley K. McManus
Respondent:
SFF Hazelton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Kirst et al v. Erck et al
as 8:2022cv00024
Plaintiff:
William Kirst and Christina Kirst
Defendant:
Stanley C Erck, Margaret G McGlynn, Rachel King and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Yung v. Erck et al
as 8:2021cv03248
Plaintiff:
Shui Shing Yung
Defendant:
Novavax, Inc., Stanley C. Erck, Gregory F. Covino and others
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.
