Cases 121 - 130 of 200,248
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv61009
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0754 Discrimination
Caplan v. OPM CLASSICS LLC et al
as 0:2024cv61010
Plaintiff:
Howard Michael Caplan
Defendant:
OPM CLASSICS LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company doing business as MIAMI GARAGE CLASSICS and BARBARA S. HART
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv61001
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv22242
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv22245
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv22249
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv14183
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
DeClerk v. Shoes For Crews, LLC
as 9:2024cv80732
Plaintiff:
Michah DeClerk
Defendant:
Shoes For Crews, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
WATSON v. HARRIS
as 1:2024cv22247
Plaintiff:
TODD E WATSON
Defendant:
Shevaun Harris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Albury v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
as 2:2024cv14182
Plaintiff:
Sharonn Jhavar Albury
Respondent:
Secretary Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
