Cases 1 - 10 of 82
C.L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc.
as 24-3345
Plaintiff:
C.L., an individual
Defendant:
DEL AMO HOSPITAL, INC., a California corporation
Antonio Gonzalez v. Garland
as 23-52
Petitioner:
AMOS ANTONIO GONZALEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Seth Nelson v. Israel Jacquez
as 22-70074
Petitioner:
SETH AMOS NELSON
Respondent:
ISRAEL JACQUEZ, Warden
In Re Subpoena to John Suzuki
as 8:2021mc00035
In Re:
John Suzuki and Subpoena to John Suzuki
Petitioner:
AMO Development, LLC, AMO Manufacturing USA, LLC, AMO Sales and Service, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
J&J Surgical Vision, Inc.
Respondent:
Alcon Vision, LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Alcon Research LLC
AMO Development, LLC et al v. Alcon Vision, LLC et al
as 8:2021mc00034
Petitioner:
AMO Development, LLC, AMO Manufacturing USA, LLC, AMO Sales and Service, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Alcon Vision LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Alcon Research LLC
Respondent:
Gautam Chaudhary
In Re:
In Re Subpoena to Gautam Chaudhary
Plaintiff:
J and J Surgical Vision, Inc.
C. L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc., et al
as 21-56195
Plaintiff / Appellant:
C. L., an individual
Defendant / Appellee:
DEL AMO HOSPITAL, INC., a California corporation and DOES, 1-10, inclusive
Amos Patton v. Catricia Howard
as 21-16479
Petitioner / Appellant:
AMOS PATTON
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN CATRICIA HOWARD, named as C. Howard
Amos Jackson v. Ken Clark
as 21-55849
Petitioner / Appellant:
AMOS JACKSON
Respondent / Appellee:
KEN CLARK, Warden
Loyce Moore, et al v. City and County of San Franci, et al
as 20-17494
Plaintiff:
SEAN MOORE
Defendant / Appellant:
KENNETH CHA, individually and in his capacity as a City of San Francisco Police Officer, COLIN PATINO, individually and in his capacity as a City of San Francisco Police Officer and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Plaintiff / Appellee:
LOYCE AMOS MOORE and CELO DAVIS MOORE
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.
