Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Mims et al v. Kalakau et al
as 2:2024cv00882
Plaintiff:
Delron Mims and Shareef Brown
Defendant:
Shentel Kalakau and DoorDash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Omnity Consulting, LLC v. Doordash, Inc.
as 4:2024cv00959
Plaintiff:
Omnity Consulting, LLC dba Harlem Shake (West 124th Street) and Omnity Consulting, LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as Harlem Shake (West 124th Street)
Defendant:
Doordash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 16 U.S.C. § 1361
Mims et al v. Kalakau et al
as 2:2024cv00342
Plaintiff:
Delron Mims and Shareef Brown
Defendant:
Shentel Kalakau and DoorDash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Karout v. Doordash, Inc.
as 3:2023cv06148
Plaintiff:
Sharbell Karout
Defendant:
Doordash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01740
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Rodgers et al v. Doordash Inc
as 3:2023cv05564
Plaintiff:
LaVonne Rodgers and Wesley Rodgers
Defendant:
Doordash Inc
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv02805
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Lendenbaum v. Doordash, Inc.
as 3:2023cv00370
Plaintiff:
Phillip Lendenbaum
Defendant:
Doordash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Lawson v. Doordash, Inc.
as 3:2022cv04059
Plaintiff:
LEONARD LAWSON
Defendant:
Doordash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Schwartz et al v. Doordash, Inc.
as 4:2022cv00250
Plaintiff:
Rebecca Schwartz, Zachary Chin, Joseph Flinders and others
Defendant:
Doordash, Inc. and DOES 1-50
Interested Party:
Leonard Lawson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
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.
