Cases 11 - 20 of 240
Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC et al v. Hochul et al
as 1:2023cv01075
Plaintiff:
Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC, Cannabis Industry Victims Seeking Justice, LLC, Rennee Barchitta and others
Defendant:
Kathy Hochul, New York State Cannabis Control Board, New York State Office of Cannabis Management and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lichter v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company et al
as 1:2022cv04488
Plaintiff:
Menachem Lichter
Defendant:
Shimon Greenwald, Aaron Klein, Jacob Kahan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nr Notice of Removal
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C. et al v. Double Why Design, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv03842
Plaintiff:
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C. and Naon Physical Therapy P.C.
Defendant:
Double Why Design, Inc., Young Jun Youn, Barbra Joanne Mangibin and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
as 1:2022cv10019
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe 1
Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Not Classified By Court:
Jordana H. Feldman, Epstein Victims Compensation Program and Bradley J. Edwards
3Rd Party Defendant:
James Edward Staley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Schottenstein, M.D. et al v. Lee et al
as 1:2022cv01197
Plaintiff:
Dr. Douglas Schottenstein, M.D., Thompson Real Estate, LLC, Schottenstein Pain and Neuro, PLLC d/b/a NY Spine Medicine and others
Defendant:
Derek Lee, Pearl Chan, Kong H Chan and others
Counter Defendant:
Schottenstein Pain and Neuro, PLLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft et al
as 1:2022cv10018
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe 1
Defendant:
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
Consolidated Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Not Classified By Court:
Epstein Victims Compensation Program and Jordana H. Feldman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Wray Inc. v. Coinbase, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv04031
Plaintiff:
Wray Inc.
Defendant:
Coinbase, Inc., Exodus and John Doe and Jane Doe #1-12
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, PC et al v. Double Why Design, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv03842
Plaintiff:
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, PC and Naon Physical Therapy P.C.
Defendant:
Double Why Design, Inc., Young Jun Youn, Barbra Joanne Mangibin and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
In Re: Auction Houses Anti., et al v. , et al
as 1:2000cv00648
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Robert A. Daly, Jr., Ronald Black, Vicki Haberman and others
Claimant:
N.B.S. Diamonds, Inc., Seymour Stein, Louis Glick Diamond Corp. d/b/a Louis Glick & Co. and others
Consolidated Defendant:
Sotheby's Inc., Christopher M. Davidge, Abraham & Associates and others
Defendant:
Fataihi Company of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, A. Alfred Taubman, Swicorp, S.A. and others
Interested Party:
United States Of America and The United States of America
Intervenor Plaintiff:
J&J Lubrano, Giovanna Terruzzi, Pamela Alper and others
Petitioner:
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P.
Plaintiff:
Herbert Black
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
Diallo v. New York City Police Department et al
as 1:2023cv01238
Plaintiff:
Ibrahima Diallo
Cross Defendant:
New York City Police Department, County Of Westchester, Westchester County Department of Corrections and others
Defendant:
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMBERS JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-12,, Westchester Department of Public Safety Members John and Jane Does 1-10, 1-10 New York City Police Officers John Does and others
Cross Claimant:
Westchester Medical Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Other
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.
