Cases 11 - 20 of 74
K.J.P., et al v. County of San Diego, et al
as 22-55392
Plaintiff / Appellee:
K.J.P., a minor, individually, by and through their mother, Loan Thi Minh Nguyen, K.P.P., a minor, individually, by and through their mother, Loan Thi Minh Nguyen and LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also sues individually and as successor in interest to her now deceased husband, Lucky Phounsy
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY NANG CHANTHAPHANH, individually
Defendant / Appellant:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and RICHARD FISCHER, Sheriff's Department deputy (#3003)
Defendant:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEAN ALLEN, Sheriff's Department deputy (#4591), AARON BROOKE, Sheriff's Department corporal (#2820) and others
K.J.P., et al v. County of San Diego, et al
as 22-55216
Plaintiff / Appellee:
K.J.P., a minor, individually, by and through their mother, Loan Thi Minh Nguyen, K.P.P., a minor, individually, by and through their mother, Loan Thi Minh Nguyen and LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also sues individually and as successor in interest to her now deceased husband, Lucky Phounsy
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY NANG CHANTHAPHANH, individually
Defendant / Appellant:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and RICHARD FISCHER, Sheriff's Department deputy (#3003)
Defendant:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEAN ALLEN, Sheriff's Department deputy (#4591), AARON BROOKE, Sheriff's Department corporal (#2820) and others
Khosrow Kamali v. Laurie Berman, et al
as 20-55526
Defendant / Appellee:
AARON OCHOCO, in his official/personal capacity as Acting Deputy District Director of Administration of the California Department of Transportation District 7, LAURIE BERMAN, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Transportation, MARCUS ATKINS, in his official/personal capacity as Facilities Manager of the California Department of Transportation District 7 Building and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KHOSROW KAMALI, an individual
Jerome Maurer v. City of Los Angeles, et al
as 18-55760
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEROME MAURER
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER A and others
Animal Protection and Rescue L, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al
as 18-55726
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE, a California nonprofit corporation, LISA KARLAN, AMY JEAN DAVIS and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, PAUL VERNON, Los Angeles Police Captain and others
Vinton Frost v. Bechetti, et al
as 18-15856
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VINTON P. FROST
Defendant - Appellee:
BECHETTI, Police Officer, Palo Alto Police Department, MECELI, Police Officer, Palo Alto Police Department and UNIDENTIFIED CAPTAIN, NIGHT WATCH COMMANDER
Thomas Chang, et al v. City of Daly City, et al
as 18-15799
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THOMAS CHANG, CHRISTINE GOIAS and MATTHEW CHANG, individually and as survivors of, and successors to, decendent ERROL CHANG
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF DALY CITY, MANUEL MARTINEZ, Daly City Police Chief, HAROLD ROLFES, Daly City Police Sergeant and others
Defendant:
CITY OF PACIFICA, JIM TASA, erroneously sued as PPD Chief of Police, JOE SPANHEIMER, Captain and others
Thomas Chang, et al v. City of Pacifica, et al
as 18-15798
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THOMAS CHANG, CHRISTINE GOIAS and MATTHEW CHANG, individually and as survivors of, and successors to, decendent ERROL CHANG
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF PACIFICA, JIM TASA, erroneously sued as PPD Chief of Police, JOE SPANHEIMER, Captain and others
Defendant:
CITY OF DALY CITY, MANUEL MARTINEZ, Daly City Police Chief, HAROLD ROLFES, Daly City Police Sergeant and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 18-15660
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Peter Tia v. Honolulu Police Department, et al
as 18-15576
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PETER RAY TIA
Defendant - Appellee:
HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, DE CAIRES, Officer, WALMART and others
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.
