Cases 1 - 10 of 375
(PC) Henderson v. Jebar, et al.
as 1:2024cv00142
Plaintiff:
Darren Henderson
Defendant:
C Jebar, C Pfeiffer, C. Jebar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(HC) Fields v. Lundy
as 2:2024cv00343
Petitioner:
Darren Fields
Respondent:
Leanna Lundy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Kawamoto v. Covello et al
as 2:2024cv00258
Plaintiff:
Darren Kawamoto
Defendant:
Patrick Covello, Bannion, M. Mendoza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Sasser v. Covelo et al
as 2:2024cv00247
Plaintiff:
Darren DeRay Sasser, Sr.
Defendant:
P. Covelo, B. Holmes, M. Mosely and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PS) Mandujano v. Lester et al
as 2:2023cv02385
Plaintiff:
Yanah Mandujano
Defendant:
Katherine Lester, Darren Pytel and Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
(UD) (PS) Cobrae v. Cobrae
as 2:2023cv01015
Plaintiff:
Darren Cobrae
Defendant:
John Cobrae
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
v. State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California et al
as 2:2023at00369
Defendant:
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Azuma Corporation, Darren Rose and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California v. Azuma Corporation et al
as 2:2023at00370
Plaintiff:
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Defendant:
Azuma Corporation, Phillip Del Rosa, Wendy Del Rosa and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
State of CA v. Azuma Corp., et al
as 2:2023cv00743
Plaintiff:
State of California
Defendant:
Azuma Corporation, Phillip Del Rosa, Darren Rose and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
