Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00836
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Machuca v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2021hc02245
Petitioner:
Jose F. Machuca
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Machuca v. MJEJ Corporation et al
as 8:2020cv00582
Defendant:
Michael Minh Ung, Richard Hang Huynh and MJEJ Corporation
Plaintiff:
Jose Clemente Machuca
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Oquendo et al v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2018cv03415
Plaintiff:
Joan Marie Nichols, Kimberly Austin, Lisa Schmidt and others
Defendant:
Chemguard, National Foam Inc, Tyco Fire Products LP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Barker et al v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2018cv03392
Plaintiff:
Domitilia Beatrice Ortiz-Valdez, Anthony Reyes, Benny Wilkerson and others
Defendant:
Tyco Fire Products LP, National Foam Inc, Kidde PLC, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Salvador Romero v. Advanced Automotive Clinic, Inc. et al
as 8:2018cv00702
Plaintiff:
German Arturo Salvador Romero
Defendant:
Advanced Automotive Clinic, Inc., Darnell Bolden and Yuri Emmanuel Machuca
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Salvador Romero v. Advanced Automotive Clinic, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv00702
Plaintiff:
German Arturo Salvador Romero
Defendant:
Advanced Automotive Clinic, Inc., Darnell Bolden and Yuri Emmanuel Machuca
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Machuca-Secundino v. Young
as 3:2016cv00138
Petitioner:
Machuca-Secundino
Respondent:
D.L. Young
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Machuca-Secundino v. Young
as 5:2016cv09266
Petitioner:
Pastor Machuca-Secundino
Respondent:
D. L. Young
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ruben Gonzalez-Machuca v. Loretta Lynch
as 15-2575
Petitioner:
RUBEN GONZALEZ MACHUCA
Respondent:
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
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.
