Cases 1 - 10 of 17
HAMMER v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
as 1:2023cv02763
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN L. HAMMER
Defendant:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ANTENHE TESFAYE and MICHAEL MUNIR HARFOUSH
Intervenor:
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
MORGAN v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
as 1:2022cv03192
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL MORGAN
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
WU et al v. KEK TRUCKING, INC. et al
as 1:2022cv02892
Not Classified By Court:
YAQUN WU and LAWRENCE WONG
Defendant:
KEK Trucking, INC. and MICHAEL EDWARD DUNN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2022cv02819
Plaintiff:
YAQUN WU, LAWRENCE WONG and NO PARTY
Defendant:
KEK Trucking, INC. and MICHAEL EDWARD DUNN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
JONES v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
as 1:2022cv02694
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
CHARLTON v. LYFT, INC. et al
as 1:2022cv01105
Plaintiff:
MEAGHAN CHARLTON
Defendant:
LYFT, INC., MICHAEL BUNDU and YONAS NEGASH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
BOND v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2019cv03148
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL BOND and MICHAEL BOND, JR
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
PRICE et al v. PEARSON et al
as 1:2019cv01272
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, 2, JOHN DOE, 3, MICHAEL PEARSON and others
Plaintiff:
DENISE PRICE and JEFFREY PRIC, Sr.,
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOUGHERTY v. WELDEMICAEL
as 1:2019cv00444
Plaintiff:
JON-MICHAEL DOUGHERTY
Defendant:
GOITOM WELDEMICAEL and GOITOM GHILAMICAEL WELDEMICAEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ASUNCION v. LERNER
as 1:2018cv02614
Not Classified By Court:
MARK S LERNER
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ASUNCION
Defendant:
MARK LERNER
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.
