Cases 91 - 100 of 37,487
James Esseks, et alIn re: James Esseks, et al
as 24-11618
Petitioner:
In re: JAMES D. ESSEKS, CARL CHARLES, LATISHA FAULKS and others
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NLRB v. Starbucks Corporation
as 24-1145
Petitioner:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent:
Starbucks Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Palmer
as 3:2024cv00141
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Phillip Durelle Palmer individually and d/b/a Big Phil's Soul & Creole Cafe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Pyramid Logistics, Inc. v. Top Flight Delivery, Inc. et al
as 0:2024cv01843
Plaintiff:
PYRAMID LOGISTICS, INC., d/b/a REYNOLDS LOGISTICS
Defendant:
TOP FLIGHT DELIVERY, INC. and DYNAMIC LIFECYCLE INNOVATIONS INC.
Davidson v. Office of Court Administration
as 24-1331
Plaintiff:
RONALD DAVIDSON
Defendant:
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, Hon. LAWRENCE MARKS, in his official capacity and personally, ALIA RAZZAQ, in her official capacity as Chief Clerk of the New York City Civil Court and others
US v. Maurice Shackleford
as 24-6478
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
MAURICE D. SHACKLEFORD
Garces v. Gamboa, et al.
as 24-3166
Plaintiff:
LUIS MANUEL GARCES
Defendant:
M. GAMBOA, KERN KLARK, D. HERNANDEZ and others
Whitford v. Salmonsen, et al.
as 24-3177
Plaintiff:
MAKUEEYAPEE D. WHITFORD
Defendant:
JIM SALMONSEN, C. JOHNSON and BRIAN GOOTKIN
Allison D. Byman v. Anda, Inc.
as 2:2024mc00064
Debtor:
Montgomery County
Plaintiff:
Allsion D. Byman
Defendant:
Sadler Clinic, PLLC and Anda, Inc.
Ghieh v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
as 5:2024cv01047
Plaintiff:
Osama Ghieh
Defendant:
United States Department of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Los Angeles Asylum Office 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.
