Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Gonzalez v. Abigail
as 23-10356
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Israel Gonzalez
Defendant / Appellee:
Timothy Abigail, DPM and Metroplex Foot and Ankle
Gonzalez v. Abigail et al
as 3:2023cv00063
Plaintiff:
Israel Gonzalez
Defendant:
Timothy Abigail, Metroplex Foot and Ankle and Steed, Dunhill, Reynolds, Bailey, Stephenson LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Hearn v. Big Foot Energy Services, LLC et al
as 9:2022cv00152
Plaintiff:
Deairreus Hearn
Defendant:
Big Foot Energy Services, LLC and Iron Mountain Energy, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Tate v. Total Foot Care
as 22-60143
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Angela Tate, Darshaun Young, Dena Myers and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Total Foot Care, at its various locations if operating as Total Foot Care
FILING ERROR
as 5:2021cv00901
Plaintiff:
Mr. Alejandro Mendoza
Defendant:
Foot Locker Retail, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Jackson v. Ray et al
as 4:2021cv00811
Defendant:
Magistrate Hal R. Ray, Jr., Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote, Mary C. Stewart and others
Plaintiff:
NaKisha Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ceasar v. Hicks et al
as 5:2019cv01113
Defendant:
S Maurice Hicks and Elizabeth Foote
Plaintiff:
**Sanctioned/Barred* R Ceasar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ceasar v. Conrad et al
as 5:2019cv01055
Defendant:
Jeff Conrad, S Maurice Hicks, Pelican State Credit Union and others
Plaintiff:
**Sanctioned/Barred* R Ceasar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tate et al v. Zaleski et al
as 3:2019cv00003
Plaintiff:
Darshaun Young, Dena Myers, Angela Tate and others
Defendant:
Total Foot Care, Hattiesburg Total Foot Care, Company John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Brown v. City of Beaumont et al
as 1:2018cv00139
Defendant:
K.G. Stevenson, Wal-mart, Cody Foote and others
Plaintiff:
Demarcus Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
