Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Stephens v. Maplebear Inc. et al
as 5:2024cv00465
Plaintiff:
Andy Dean Stephens
Defendant:
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, Fidji Simo, Nick Giovanni and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Cleveland Constantine Browne et al v. Rodriguez Lopez-Cepero et al
as 2:2021cv08295
Plaintiff:
Cleveland Constantine Browne, Anika Johnson, Steely & Clevie Productions Ltd. and others
Defendant:
Luis Alfonso Rodriguez Lopez-Cepero, Mauricio Rengifo, Andres Torres and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv05974
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
Woellhart et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
as 4:2021cv01499
Plaintiff:
Veronica L. Hoover, Alicia C. Dennard, Timothy Joe Davis and others
Defendant:
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Coretta Simo Love Monk v. Alex Villanueva
as 2:2020cv02631
Defendant:
Sheriff Alex Villanueva, Captain Laura E Lecrivain, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and others
Plaintiff:
Ms. Coretta Simo Love Monk and Coretta Simo Love Monk
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Duvnjak v. Box, Inc. et al
as 4:2019cv03173
Defendant:
Box, Inc., Daniel J. Levin, Aaron Levie and others
Plaintiff:
Simo Duvnjak
Simo v. County of Sutter et al
as 2:2018cv02861
Defendant:
J. Paul Parker and County of Sutter
Plaintiff:
Steven Anthony Simo
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited et al v. SIMO Holdings Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv05031
Defendant:
SIMO Holdings Inc. and Skyroam, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and uCloudlink (America), Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Kaiguo Wu v. Jefferson Sessions, III
as 18-71371
Petitioner:
KAIGUO WU, AKA Luing Emilio Simo Valdez
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
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.
