Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Gentry v. Rincones et al
as 9:2023cv07045
Plaintiff:
Rex A. Gentry
Defendant:
Paul Daniel Rincones and National OnDemand, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
MARTINEZ v. RINCON LATINO, INC. et al
as 1:2022cv00032
Plaintiff:
MARIA M MARTINEZ and MARIA MABEL MARTINEZ
Defendant:
RINCON LATINO, INC., EMIGDIO CASTRO, JOSE LIRA and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv02389
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1255
Atkinson v. The City of Fayetteville et al
as 5:2020cv00351
Defendant:
David Miller, Bernard Condlin, Esq., The City of Fayetteville and others
Plaintiff:
Gerard Atkinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Rincon et al
as 1:2017cv00513
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Hector Rincon, Guapo of Manassas, Inc. and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Medard et al
as 2:2017cv00238
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Reginald Medard, Fortune 5 Hundred, LLC and John Doe
Consolidated_defendant:
Hector Rincon, Guapo of Manassas, Inc. , John Doe and others
Counter_defendant:
Russell Pettaway
Consolidated_plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
Rincon-Alfaro v. Tripp
as 5:2016hc02205
Petitioner:
Faustino Rincon-Alfaro
Respondent:
Brick Tripp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01370
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Rincon v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2015cv09580
Plaintiff:
Estela Rincon
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
US v. Sixto Rincon
as 14-4582
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
SIXTO RINCON
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.
