Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Alfredo Ramirez et al v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. et al
as 5:2024cv01038
Plaintiff:
Alfredo Ramirez and Ramn Santos Castro
Defendant:
AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., Charles E. Parks, III, John D. Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.
Barrios v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv02357
Plaintiff:
Wilis Barrios
Defendant:
AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1104 E.R.I.S.A.: Recovery of Benefits to Employee
Smith v. Diaz, et al.
as 23-3551
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH
Defendant / Appellee:
RALPH DIAZ, XAVIER BECERRA, KEITH L. FAGUNDES and others
Johnson v. Marks et al
as 3:2023cv00361
Plaintiff:
Timothy H. Johnson
Defendant:
Dana Marks, E Parks, J. Mainwaring and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parkes v. State of Nevada et al
as 3:2023cv00015
Plaintiff:
Robert E. Parkes
Defendant:
State of Nevada, Aaron Ford, Douglas Rand and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Duran v. Ross, et al.
as 1:2021cv01096
Plaintiff:
Paul Edward Duran
Defendant:
M. Ross, A. Valdez and E Parks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Duran v. Duran et al
as 1:2021cv00263
Defendant:
Muniz, Duran, M. Gamboa and others
Plaintiff:
Paul Edward Duran
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Hammler v. State of California et al
as 2:2020cv00884
Defendant:
County of Sacramento, M. Gamboa, Pleshchuk and others
Plaintiff:
Allen Hammler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Smith v. Diaz, et al.
as 1:2020cv00349
Defendant:
D. Clark, M. Lirones, E. Rollins and others
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Christopher Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Diaz et al
as 4:2020cv01557
Defendant:
D. Clark, M. Lirones, E. Rollins and others
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Christopher Smith
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.
