Cases 81 - 90 of 278
GEROLD v. ALLES et al
as 2:2018cv15405
Defendant:
MARK J. ALLES, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN and others
Plaintiff:
SAM BARAN GEROLD, Derivatively on Behalf of CELGENE CORPORATION and SAM BARAN GEROLD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HIRSCHFELD v. BECKERLE et al
as 3:2018cv14796
Defendant:
CHARLES PRINCE, ANNE M MULCAHY, WILLIAM D PEREZ and others
Plaintiff:
MARC HIRSCHFELD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HIRSCHFELD v. BECKERLE et al
as 3:2018cv14796
Defendant:
CHARLES PRINCE, ANNE M MULCAHY, WILLIAM D PEREZ and others
Plaintiff:
MARC HIRSCHFELD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WORKMAN v. PAPPAJOHN et al
as 2:2018cv14259
Defendant:
CANCER GENETICS, INC., IGOR GITELMAN, MICHAEL J. WELSH and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL WORKMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
McNEECE v. PAPPAJOHN et al
as 2:2018cv14093
Defendant:
CANCER GENETICS, INC., RAJU S. K. CHAGANTI, MICHAEL J. WELSH and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID McNEECE
MELDON v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2018cv10166
Plaintiff:
JOHN MELDON
Defendant:
RICHARD THOMPSON , RICHARD KASSAR , SCOTT MORRIS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BELL v. SHARMA et al
as 2:2018cv10009
Plaintiff:
STEVE BELL
Defendant:
PANNA L. SHARMA, JOHN A. ROBERTS, IGOR GITELMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
514 CENTRAL AVENUE NOODLEFUN CORP. v. NOODLEFUN GROUP LLC et al
as 2:2018cv02452
Defendant:
NOODLEFUN GROUP LLC, PUNSAK PUNCHAROEN, JESSE ARTECHE and others
Plaintiff:
514 CENTRAL AVENUE NOODLEFUN CORP.
Cause Of Action: 7 U.S.C. § 25
JOHNSON v. SCHWARTZ et al
as 2:2018cv00903
Plaintiff:
REED JOHNSON
Defendant:
MARK SCHWARTZ, RYAN M. DUNLAP, CHRISTOPHER S. LENTO and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
GISSIN et al v. JARKOI et al
as 2:2017cv10097
Plaintiff:
MIKHAIL GISSIN and ALEXANDRA GISSIN
Defendant:
ROMAN JARKOI, BORIS KALK, INTELLIGENT SECURITY SYSTEMS CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
