Cases 11 - 20 of 41
Jones v. AT&T Inc.
as 1:2022cv00064
Plaintiff:
David L. Jones
Defendant:
AT&T Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
BETANCES v. AT&T INC. et al
as 3:2020cv02239
Defendant:
AT&T Inc. doing business as AT&T STORE WILKES BARRE, GABBY NORWOOD, OLIVER PHILPOTT and others
Plaintiff:
CARLOS BETANCES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BETANCES v. AT&T INC. et al
as 2:2020cv04334
Defendant:
AT&T INC. doing business as AT&T STORE WILKES BARRE, GABBY NORWOOD, OLIVER PHILPOTT and others
Plaintiff:
CARLOS BETANCES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dannez Hunter v. Keith Rupert Murdoch, et al
as 19-2293
Defendant / Appellee:
David S. Doty, Ruben Castillo, James Rupert Murdoch and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Dannez W. Hunter
Gaither et al v. Rocking T Inc of Amarillo, Texas et al
as 2:2018cv00106
Plaintiff:
Thomas Eugene Gaither, Diana Cedillo and John Brown, Jr.
Defendant:
Rocking T Inc of Amarillo, Texas and Seaboards Foods LLC of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Gassaway v. AT&T Inc et al
as 4:2018cv00271
Plaintiff:
Doug Gassaway
Defendant:
AT&T Inc and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Chaula Bhatt v. John Hoffman, et al
as 17-1182
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHAULA S. BHATT
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN J. HOFFMAN, Former NJ AG, AT&T INC, And Nationwide AT&T Subsidiaries, DENNIS M. GALVIN and others
Davidson v. AT&T Inc et al
as 3:2017cv00006
Plaintiff:
Thomas Landell Davidson
Defendant:
AT&T Inc, City of Dallas Texas and Officer Jarvis (Badge #10097)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BHATT v. AT&T INC. et al
as 3:2016cv03715
Plaintiff:
CHAULA S. BHATT
Defendant:
AT&T INC., COLLABERA INC., MICHAEL CHIRICO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Le Eldred Palm Sr. v. AT and T Inc et al
as 2:2016cv00859
Defendant:
AT and T Inc, AT and T Mobility LLC and Does
Plaintiff:
Le Eldred Palm, Sr
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.
