Cases 61 - 70 of 115
Donovan v. Woodbridge Maintenance Association, et al
as 2:2014cv00995
Plaintiff:
Alice M. Donovan
Defendant:
Woodbridge Maintenance Association and Frei Real Estate Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
U.S.A. v. Mendoza, et al.
as 1:2014cv00330
Defendant:
Ken Mendoza and Alice Mendoza
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
v. Mendoza et al
as 1:2014at00157
Defendant:
Ken Mendoza and Alice Mendoza
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
P. et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
as 2:2013cv02207
Plaintiff:
J, P. and Alice Plummer
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation and SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
P. et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
as 2:2013at01212
Plaintiff:
J, P. and Alice Plummer
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation and SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2013cv00716
Plaintiff:
Alice M Soto
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2013at00304
Plaintiff:
Alice M Soto
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kirkpatrick et al
as 2:2013cv00348
Plaintiff:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendant:
Alice Kirkpatrick and Jesus Cantu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444
Cagle v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2012cv01906
Plaintiff:
Alice Cagle
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416
ACE CAPITAL LIMITED et al v. ePLANNING, INC. et al
as 2:2012at00807
Plaintiff:
ACE CAPITAL LIMITED, ACE CAPITAL IV LIMITED, ACE CAPITAL V LIMITED and others
Defendant:
ePLANNING, INC., ePLANNING SECURITIES, INC., ePLANNING ADVISORS, INC., and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
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.
