Cases 11 - 20 of 254
Ryder v. Edwards et al
as 3:2023cv00501
Plaintiff:
R. Randall Ryder, Jr.
Defendant:
David P. Edwards, DSS/DCSA and ARBA/BCMR
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
as 1:2023cv01019
Plaintiff:
David Bishop
Defendant:
Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
Consolidated Defendant:
Maximus, Inc.
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Linden Buzzell, Carlos Harding, Clifford Beers and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Lodhi v. Dameron et al
as 1:2023cv00807
Plaintiff:
Saad Usman Lodhi
Defendant:
Dameron, Tremayne, Kimberly Hobson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Lodhi v. Hobson et al
as 1:2023cv00759
Plaintiff:
Saad Usman Lodhi
Defendant:
Kimberly Hobson, A. David Robinson, Harold Clarke and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Sultan v. Malik et al
as 1:2023cv00457
Plaintiff:
Hassan Sultan
Defendant:
Nosheen H. Malik, Nicholas J. Solan, Andrew P. Hoffman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Baker v. Miller et al
as 2:2023cv00103
Plaintiff:
David Baker
Defendant:
Michael Miller, Allegiance Realty Partners, LLC dba Re/Max Allegiance (CI of Virginia Beach) and John Does 1-15
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Adugna v. Garland et al
as 1:2022cv01391
Plaintiff:
Bereket Adugna
Defendant:
Attorney General Merrick Garland, David L. Neal, David H. Wetmore and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Crum v. Walden Commons Corporate Office
as 1:2022cv01333
Plaintiff:
David Hall Crum
Defendant:
Walden Commons Corporate Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
SOC LLC et al v. Conner II et al
as 1:2022cv01280
Plaintiff:
SOC LLC and Day & Zimmermann Group, Inc.
Defendant:
Billy Max Conner II and David Ray Johnson
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.
