Cases 1 - 10 of 94
Amber Doe v. Sequoia Capital et al
as 2:2023cv06439
Plaintiff:
Amber Doe
Defendant:
Sequoia Capital, Michael Lewis Goguen, Two Bear Capital and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00487
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00260
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ruperts Court Trust v. Federal National Mortgage Association
as 2:2022cv00136
Plaintiff:
Ruperts Court Trust
Defendant:
Federal National Mortgage Association
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bentley v. Kijakazi
as 9:2021cv00076
Defendant:
Andrew Saul and Kilolo Kijakazi
Plaintiff:
Rupert A. Bentley, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402
Ivan Law v. Rupert A. Byrdsong
as 2:2021cv01321
Defendant:
Rupert A. Byrdsong
Plaintiff:
Ivan Law
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Lisa Douglass v. De Beers Group, UK et al
as 2:2020cv06525
Defendant:
Paris Hilton, Weymouth Clinic Variety, Andrew Frankel and others
Plaintiff:
Lisa Douglass and Lisa M Douglass
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Donahoe v. Donahoe et al
as 3:2020cv05388
Defendant:
Debbie Borchers, Trudi lnslee, Karl Hack and others
Plaintiff:
Kevin Douglas Donahoe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Browne v. City and County of Honolulu
as 1:2019cv00460
Defendant:
Susan Ballard, Samuel L. Jacso, Doe Officers 1 through 20, Inclusive and others
Plaintiff:
Rupert Browne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Rupert Flowers v. B. Johnson, et al
as 18-16589
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUPERT DENNIS FLOWERS
Defendant - Appellee:
B. JOHNSON, Correctional Officer, M. MARTINEZ, Correctional Officer and T. MARSH, Correctional Lieutenant
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.
