Cases 21 - 30 of 51
Christopher Lancaster v. USDC-CARIV
as 17-73003
:
In re: CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
Real Party In Interest:
UNKNOWN MALE NURSE, individual & official capacity, PRICE, individual, PRICE, Nurse-official capacity and others
Christopher Lancaster v. Warden Richard B. Ives et al
as 5:2017cv00927
Respondent:
Acting Warden Unknown Associate, Case Manager Coordinater Ms. Ragosa, Duty Officer Unknown and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lancaster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jeremy Ruff v. B. Pittman et al
as 5:2017cv01538
Defendant:
Garibay and B. Pittman
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Ruff
Randall Pittman v. Adminstrative Review Board, et al
as 17-71393
Petitioner:
RANDALL PITTMAN
Respondent:
ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
Randall Pittman v. Adminstrative Review Board, et al
as 17-71238
Petitioner:
RANDALL PITTMAN
Respondent:
ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION
Nicolas et al v. Audi AG et al
as 3:2017cv02406
Plaintiff:
Melissa Nicolas , Denard White , Jorge Gomez and others
Defendant:
Audi of America LLC and Audi AG
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301
James Pittman v. Shawn Hatton
as 16-72738
Petitioner:
JAMES PITTMAN
Respondent:
SHAWN HATTON, Warden
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv01351
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Margaret Ruiz, et al v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
as 13-80035
Plaintiff - Respondent:
MARGARET E. RUIZ, ARETTE BARNES, ALYCE BOLOWSKIE and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Board/Trustees Southern CA IBEW-NECA Pen Trust Fund V. Pittman
as 2:2001cv01476
Plaintiff:
Board/Trustees Southern CA IBEW-NECA Pen Trst Fund
Defendant:
John Pittman
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.
