Cases 91 - 100 of 3,108
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03798
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
HAIR ZONE, INC. v. BAE et al
as 2:2023cv03598
Plaintiff:
HAIR ZONE, INC.
Defendant:
JOON HAN BAE, DAE DO INC., JOHN DOES 1-5 and others
SUN TAIYANG CO., LTD. v. DAE DO INC. et al
as 2:2023cv03614
Plaintiff:
SUN TAIYANG CO., LTD.
Defendant:
DAE DO INC., MINSOO CHO, SUNG CHAN HONG and others
LI v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) et al
as 1:2023cv03612
Plaintiff:
Xiaowei LI
Defendant:
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, NEWARK ASYLUM OFFICE, USCIS and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
AIRTECH INTERNATIONAL INC v. YIM et al
as 2:2022cv00668
Plaintiff:
AIRTECH INTERNATIONAL INC
Defendant:
BYUNG CHAN YIM, HYO SUN KIM, ASSURED COMPONENTS LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CUBBY, ESQ. v. CITY OF PATERSON et al
as 2:2023cv02842
Plaintiff:
DAVID R. CUBBY, ESQ.
Defendant:
CITY OF PATERSON, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COUNTY OF PASSAIC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. PRINCETON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING, LLC et al
as 3:2023cv03367
Petitioner:
PRINCETON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LLC, MICROBILT CORPORATION, PHILIP N BURGESS and others
Respondent:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ROZZI v. SELFORS et al
as 3:2023cv03363
Defendant:
ROBERT SELFORS, BOB HANSEN, CANA WITTENBERG SELFORS and others
Plaintiff:
GAVIN ROZZI
SHAMI JEWELRY, LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2023cv02376
Plaintiff:
Shami Jewelry, LLC, SHAMI JEWELRY, INC, SHAMI FINE WATCHMAKING and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, MERRICK GARLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
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.
