Cases 11 - 20 of 32
Waseem Daker v. Joyette Holmes, et al
as 20-13601
Defendant / Appellee:
AMELIA G. PRAY, Assistant District Attorney, Cobb County District Attorney's Office, MICHAEL W. ALMAND, Court Reporter, CHRISTINA WILLOUGHBY, Admin. Specialist and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WASEEM DAKER
Prayed v. USDOL, et al
as 19-35830
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PRAYED
Defendant / Appellee:
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION, BRUCE M. SHELT, Interim President Local No. 183, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta and others
Prayed, et al v. Alaska Railroad Corporation, et al
as 19-35775
Defendant / Appellee:
BRUCE M. SHELT, ALASKA RAILROAD WORKERS LOCAL 183, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and others
Plaintiff:
FREDERIC T. READY
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PRAYED
Maple Drake Austell Owner, LLC v. D.F. Pray, Inc.
as 1:2019cv05930
Plaintiff:
Maple Drake Austell Owner, LLC
Defendant:
D.F. Pray, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 pr
James v. Venettozzi
as 19-870
Defendant:
C.O. C. Stevens, G.M.C.F., Sgt. Woodruff, G.M.C.F., Lt. Pray, G.M.C.F. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Terrence James
Defendant / Appellee:
Lt. Bradly
Krumwiede et al v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv01688
Defendant:
Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Sharon Perry, Shirley Oliver, Sharon Hergenrider and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Hari et al v. Singh et al
as 5:2019cv00015
Plaintiff:
Shantilal Hari and Asokkumar Chudasama
Defendant:
Creative Eye International, LLC, 27 Haute Avenue Boutique, Rajiv Singh and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
In re: Chadrick Pray
as 18-10651
Petitioner:
In re: CHADRICK PRAY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
In re: Chadrick Pray
as 17-14148
Petitioner:
In re: CHADRICK PRAY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
