Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Smith v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00416
Plaintiff:
Marie Smith f/k/a Marie Ventura
Defendant:
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Courtemanche et al v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al
as 4:2024cv40030
Plaintiff:
Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios and others
Defendant:
Motorola Solutions, Inc., Colonel John E Mawn, Jr, Callyo 2009 Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Camacho, et al v. The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, et al
as 2:2022cv00048
Plaintiff:
Corina Camacho, Tanisha Rodriguez and Selena Sanchez
Defendant:
The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, Pedro "Pete" Arredondo, The City of Uvalde and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kleven et al v. St. Joseph County et al
as 3:2021cv00961
Plaintiff:
Brooke Kleven, Christopher Kleven, H.K. and others
Defendant:
St. Joseph County, Jeffrey Downey, Jennifer Stitsworth and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Harold Pick v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv08702
Plaintiff:
Harold Pick
Defendant:
Motorola Solutions, Inc., United States Department of Justice and Kent J Vandersteen
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Humphrey v. Fulk et al
as 4:2020cv01158
Defendant:
Michael McVay, Motorola Solutions doing business as Watchguard, Shella Atlas-Evans and others
Plaintiff:
Keith Humphrey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BARATI v. BONDI et al
as 4:2018cv00275
Plaintiff:
ZOLTAN BARATI
Defendant:
PAMELA JO BONDI and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lawlor, et al v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, et al
as 1:2017cv00117
Plaintiff:
Denis Lawlor and Daniel Varallo
Defendant:
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Illinois State Police, Motorola Solutions, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
