Cases 31 - 40 of 622
Johnnie Diaz v. Redondo Beach Police Department et al
as 2:2023cv04457
Plaintiff:
Johnnie Diaz
Defendant:
Redondo Beach Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Chief Michel Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights Act
Gerow v. United States Department of Justice et al
as 2:2023cv01059
Plaintiff:
Eric Gerow
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice, Phoenix, City of, Phoenix Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Injunction
Warren v. Nanos et al
as 4:2023cv00254
Plaintiff:
Johnny Lee Warren
Defendant:
Chris Nanos, Laura Conover, Samantha Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tomas-Tomas v. Garland
as 22-677
Petitioner:
ROSARIO TOMAS-TOMAS and PABLO ALFREDO PABLO-TOMAS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Maciel v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
as 4:2023cv02380
Plaintiff:
Rosario Maciel
Defendant:
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Andrews v. Humboldt County et al
as 1:2023cv02421
Plaintiff:
Derrick Andrews
Defendant:
Humboldt County, Patrick Del Rosario and Kyle Holt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00640
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00663
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00133
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00132
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
