Cases 61 - 70 of 5,874
BUCHANAN v. CLODE et al
as 2:2024cv01381
Plaintiff:
DIAMOND BUCHANAN
Defendant:
PROF. TAMAR MAKIN, PROF. DANI CLODE, HAUWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Civil Rights: Other
Scott v. Apple, Inc et al
as 5:2024cv06866
Plaintiff:
Everett Scott
Defendant:
Applecare Service Company Inc and Apple, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv02089
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple Inc.
as 1:2024cv08221
Plaintiff:
MPH Technologies Oy
Defendant:
Apple Inc.
Cross-Plaintiff:
Haan LLC and Lee Sheikh
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
SBG Apple Central I, LLC, et al v. City National Bank of Florida
as 24-13153
Intervenor:
SBG APPLE CENTRAL V, LLC, SBG APPLE CENTRAL IV, LLC, SBG APPLE CENTRAL IX, LLC and others
Defendant:
LOUISIANA APPLE, LLC, OKLAHOMA APPLE, LLC, KENTUCKY APPLE, LLC and others
Unknown:
SERVICE
Plaintiff:
CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA
Restoration 1 Franchise Holding LLC v. CWO Technical Solutions LLC et al
as 3:2024cv02440
Defendant:
Cory T. Graves and CWO Technical Solutions LLC
Plaintiff:
Restoration 1 Franchise Holding LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44 Trademark Infringement
Bakay, et al. v. Apple Inc.
as 24-5314
Plaintiff:
LUISA BAKAY, LETICIA SHAW and ELISA JONES
Defendant:
APPLE INC.
Julia Robinson, et al v. USA, et al
as 24-12513
Defendant:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CIA, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and others
Plaintiff:
KENDALL J. HALL and JULIA MAE ROBINSON
Doe v. Apple Inc.
as 5:2024cv05107
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
Apple Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1881
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
