Cases 1 - 10 of 622
Bac-Coc, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3302
Petitioner:
MARLEN ROSARIO BAC-COC and EZRB A JUVENILE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Alas Gomez, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3276
Petitioner:
FATIMA DEL ROSARIO ALAS GOMEZ and AXEL ALESSANDRO MONGE ALAS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Del Rosario Rojas, et al. v. Miller, et al.
as 24-2732
Plaintiff:
EVELYN DEL ROSARIO ROJAS and J. ASUNCION ROJAS BAUTISTA
Defendant:
LOREN K. MILLER, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M. JADDOU and others
Pamatz Valencia, et al. v. Miller, et al.
as 24-2658
Plaintiff:
LEONILA ROSARIO PAMATZ VALENCIA and JOSE BELEN RECENDIZ ARREOLA
Defendant:
LOREN K. MILLER, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M. JADDOU and others
Warren v. Nanos, et al.
as 24-2601
Plaintiff:
JOHNNY LEE WARREN
Defendant:
CHRIS NANOS, Sheriff, LAURA CONOVER, County Attorney, SAMANTHA WALKER, CES Dut and others
Berg, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
as 24-2433
Respondent:
KRIZIA BERG, GRACE BRYANT, NOELANI DEL ROSARIO-SABET and others
Petitioner:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity and ALEX VILLANUEVA, Sheriff
Del Rosario, MD et al v. McCrary
as 3:2024cv00686
Plaintiff:
Gelen Del Rosario, MD, Arij Faksh, DO and Bridge Prenatal, LLC
Defendant:
Jack McCrary
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ij Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00741
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Ramirez Bernabe, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2265
Petitioner:
ROSARIO DE JESUS RAMIREZ BERNABE, FRIDA SOFIA ISIDORO RAMIREZ and VALERY CONCEPCION ISIDORO RAMIREZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Luna v. O'Malley
as 2:2024cv02840
Plaintiff:
Rosario Luna
Defendant:
Commissioner of SS Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
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.
