Cases 21 - 30 of 157
Mendez v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv04122
Plaintiff:
Erin Dietz Mendez
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
USA v. Gilbert Mendez
as 22-3966
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
GILBERT MENDEZ
Gutierrez et al v. Leon & Espinoza, Inc. et al
as 3:2022cv00325
Plaintiff:
Adrian Gutierrez, Yoselin Mendez and Fabian Rosales
Defendant:
Leon & Espinoza, Inc., Catarino Espinoza and Liliana Jamie
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Mendez v. AT&T Inc.
as 2:2022cv11010
Plaintiff:
Monica L. Mendez
Defendant:
AT&T Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company and AT&T Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Belliard-Mendez v. FirstFleet, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv01303
Plaintiff:
Domingo Belliard-Mendez
Defendant:
FirstFleet, Inc., Jeffrey Cunningham and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Mendez v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv00261
Plaintiff:
Siria Mendez
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Yolanda Mendez-Rodriguez, et al v. Merrick Garland
as 21-4181
Petitioner:
YOLANDA MARISOL MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, ANTHONY RICARDO MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ and ROLANDO FABRICIO MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Sayda Mendez-Gabriel, et al v. Merrick Garland
as 21-4124
Petitioner:
SAYDA LETICIA MENDEZ-GABRIEL and JANI IBERLA DIAZ-MENDEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Palomino v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio et al
as 1:2021cv02139
Plaintiff:
Novelle Palomino
Defendant:
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, City of Cleveland Police Dept. 601, Michael Moctezuma and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Albert Mendez v. Merrick Garland
as 21-4012
Petitioner:
ALBERT OTONIEL MENDEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. 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.
