Cases 1 - 10 of 67
Ying Chen v. Merrick Garland
as 23-3939
Petitioner:
YING CHEN
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Qiang Chen-Guo v. Merrick Garland
as 23-3520
Petitioner:
QIANG CHEN-GUO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Filing Error
as 1:2023cv00142
Defendant:
Sotera Health Company, Michael Petras, Jr., Scott Leffler and others
Oakland County Employees' Retirement System et al v. Sotera Health Company et al
as 1:2023cv00143
Plaintiff:
Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association
Defendant:
Sotera Health Company, Michael Petras, Jr., Scott Leffler and others
Dakhlallah et al v. Nicholas "Nick" Chan et al
as 5:2022cv11522
Plaintiff:
Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Tarik Tufre and Abedellatif Aoun
Defendant:
Nicholas "Nick" Chan, Maxim Gerrnick, Jonas Snellincx and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Chen et al v. United States of America et al
as 2:2022cv11464
Petitioner:
Xin Chen and Liqin Ren
Respondent:
United States of America, Commissioner Charles P Rettig and Kimberly Elliott
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7609 IRS: Petition to Quash IRS Summons
Qiuwei Chen v. Robert Wilkinson
as 21-3142
Respondent:
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting U.S. Attorney General
Petitioner:
QIUWEI CHEN
Tong Chen v. William Barr
as 20-3980
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General
Petitioner:
TONG CHEN, aka Tung Chen
Qiu Chen v. William Barr
as 20-3609
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General
Petitioner:
QIU YAN CHEN
USA, ex rel Joseph Odish, et al v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al
as 19-1693
Defendant / Appellee:
LAWRENCE ELLISON, HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., LARRY PAGE and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSEPH ODISH and CRANBROOK CAPITAL CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel and MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
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.
