Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Avens v. Dixon et al
as 4:2024cv00051
Plaintiff:
Cynthia B. Avens
Defendant:
Faris C. Dixon, Jr., Vidant/ECU Health Medical Center, Dr. Karen Kelly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Waden v. Aven Financial, Inc
as 3:2024cv00266
Plaintiff:
Dodie Waden
Defendant:
Aven Financial, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Trustees of The National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare Fund et al v. Aven Fire Systems, Inc.
as 8:2022cv02033
Plaintiff:
Trustees of The National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare Fund, Trustees of the National Automatic Sprinker Industry Pension Fund, Trustees of the Sprinkler Industry Supplemental Pension Fund and others
Defendant:
AVEN FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Rico v. Aven
as 8:2018cv01951
Plaintiff:
Michael Rico
Defendant:
Christopher Aven
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sellers v. USA
as 4:2016cv00968
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Aven Sellers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Sellers v. Parker et al
as 2:2012cv02263
Plaintiff:
Aven Lamar Shariff Sellers
Defendant:
Sam Parker, Administrator Richie, Chesterfiled SC Detention Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Martin et al
as 1:2010cv00116
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
Joseph Martin, Aven Kipp Martin, Discover Financial Services and others
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7403
Jonathan Riches v. Mikhail Fridman
as 08-7449
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Defendant - Appellee:
MIKHAIL FRIDMAN, d/b/a OAO Alpha Bank and PYOTR AVEN
Riches v. Fridman et al
as 6:2008cv01193
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Lee Riches
Defendant:
Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Brooks v. Astrue
as 8:2007cv03935
Plaintiff:
Avenous Brooks
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
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.
