Cases 21 - 30 of 37
Ramat v. Nielsen et al
as 3:2017cv02474
Plaintiff:
Zander Ramat
Defendant:
Kristjen Nielsen , L. Francis Cissna , Melissa Maxim and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv01695
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ricardo Bruno et al v. County of Los Angeles
as 8:2017cv01301
Plaintiff:
Rachel Bruno and Ricardo Bruno
Defendant:
CHOC CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY, Children's Hospital Orange County, County of Los Angeles and others
Freitag v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00865
Defendant:
Alaska Airlines, Inc., Does 1 and 2, Erin Flinn and others
Plaintiff:
Kurt Freitag
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Cunningham v. United States of America et al
as 4:2017cv05045
Plaintiff:
Aaron Joseph Cunningham
Defendant:
United States of America, John Does 1 and 2 and Federal Bureau of Investigations
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas Bodnar v. County of Riverside, et al
as 17-55277
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS BODNAR
Defendant - Appellee:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, J. WHITTING, individually and as a Sheriff's Department Employee, T. TORRENTI, individually and as a Sheriff's Department Employee and others
Thomas Bodnar v. County of Riverside et al
as 5:2016cv01825
Defendant:
C. Bianco, County of Riverside, DOES 1 through 2 and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas Bodnar
Samuel Wilson v. Archer, et al
as 14-35085
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SAMUEL EARL WILSON
Defendant - Appellee:
ARCHER, Sgt., ROBERTS, Lut., DEACON, Mr. and others
Mykal Ryan v. Thomas Bryant, et al
as 11-56491
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MYKAL S. RYAN
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS H. BRYANT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DOES, 1 through 2-, inclusive
Joshua Tolsma v. King County, et al
as 11-35601
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSHUA TOLSMA
Defendant - Appellee:
KING COUNTY and JOHN DOE, 1 and 2
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.
