Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv01528
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chapman v. Penn National Gaming, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv02924
Plaintiff:
Dustin Chapman
Defendant:
Penn National Gaming, Inc., Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Inc. and Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Walter Rosales, et al v. Amy Dutschke, et al
as 17-16967
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER J. ROSALES, KAREN TOGGERY, APRIL LOUISE PALMER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, JOHN RYDZIK, Chief, Environmental Division, Bureau of Indian Affairs, CARLENE A. CHAMBERLAIN and others
Rosales, et al. v. Dutschke, et al.
as 2:2015cv01145
Plaintiff:
Walter J. Rosales , Karen Toggery , April Louise Palmer and others
Defendant:
Amy Dutschke, John Rydzik, Kenneth Meza and others
Cause Of Action: 25 U.S.C. § 640
Rosales et al v. Dutschke et al
as 2:2015at00615
Plaintiff:
Walter Rosales , Karen Toggery , April Louise Palmer and others
Defendant:
Amy Dutschke, John Rydzik, Kenny Meza and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv02218
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Aruze Gaming America, Inc. et al v. MGT Gaming, Inc.
as 2:2013cv00041
Plaintiff:
Aruze Gaming America, Inc. and Penn National Gaming, Inc.
Defendant:
MGT Gaming, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Rembrandt Gaming Technologies, LP v. Boyd Gaming Corporation et al
as 2:2012cv00775
Defendant:
Boyd Gaming Corporation, Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Rembrandt Gaming Technologies, LP
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
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.
