Cases 91 - 100 of 753
Montoya v. Cueva, et al
as 3:2022cv00410
Petitioner:
Louis Shawn Montoya, Jr.
Respondent:
Daniel E. Cueva and Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Lollis v. Zell et al
as 2:2022cv00486
Plaintiff:
William Lollis and William Matthew Lollis
Defendant:
Zell, Brian Kibler, Connie Gippson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Lollis v. Zell et al
as 2:2022cv00433
Plaintiff:
William Lollis and William Matthew Lollis
Defendant:
Zell, Jenkins, Brian Kibler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00279
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Rafael Martirosyan v. Hakopyan et al
as 2:2022cv01169
Plaintiff:
Rafael Martirosyan
Defendant:
Hakopyan, Montoya, L.A.S.D. Medical and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jose Victor Hernandez Cuellar et al v. Omega-17, LLC
as 5:2022cv00196
Plaintiff:
Jose Victor Hernandez Cuellar and Dora Alicia Montoya Valadez
Defendant:
Omega-17, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Montoya et al v. Rose City Taqueria LLC et al
as 3:2021cv01889
Plaintiff:
Ednira Montoya, Jose Flores and Alejandro Montes
Defendant:
Rose City Taqueria LLC, PNW Eats, LLC and Verenice Mendoza
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act - Denial of Overtime Compensation
Montoya-Campos v. Garland
as 21-1425
Petitioner:
MILADY MONTOYA-CAMPOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv02059
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Montoya v. Penzone
as 2:2021cv01894
Plaintiff:
Valerie A Montoya
Defendant:
Paul Penzone
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
