Cases 41 - 50 of 139
Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings
as 21-1007
Plaintiff:
Melissa Thompson, Nannette Klatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sara Ann Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA Sarah Ann Masse and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Nancy Ashbrooke, Richard Koenigsberg, Miramax Film NY, LLC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Larissa Gomes, Melissa Sagemiller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nannette May, FKA Nannette Klatt and others
Defendant:
Miramax Film Corp. and Miramax, LLC
Geiss v. The Weinstein Company Holdings
as 21-1011
Plaintiff:
Melissa Thompson, Nannette Klatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sara Ann Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA Sarah Ann Masse and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Nancy Ashbrooke, Richard Koenigsberg, Miramax Film NY, LLC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Larissa Gomes, Melissa Sagemiller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nannette May, FKA Nannette Klatt and others
Defendant:
Miramax Film Corp. and Miramax, LLC
Amina Yazdanie et al v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al
as 8:2021cv01313
Plaintiff:
Amina Yazdanie
Petitioner:
First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FFC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee, Su
Defendant:
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Affinia Default Services, LLC, First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
621 Two, LLC v. Leggett & Platt Incorporated, et al
as 21-55871
Plaintiff / Appellant:
621 TWO, LLC, as successor in interest to 621, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
LEGGETT & PLATT INCORPORATED
Defendant:
DOES, 1-50, inclusive
Lee Montes v. Clayton Duran, et al
as 21-55876
Plaintiff / Appellee:
LEE MONTES
Defendant / Appellant:
OFFICER CLAYTON DURAN, No. 673
Defendant:
OFFICER RANEER, No. 664, CITY OF EL MONTE and DOES, 1-50, inclusive
Linda Castellucci v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al
as 21-55554
Defendant / Appellee:
DOES, 1-50, inclusive and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LINDA CASTELLUCCI, an individual
Teresa Perkins, et al v. Kenneth Edgar, et al
as 21-55552
Plaintiff / Appellee:
TERESA PERKINS, as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent Justin Perkins and DAVID MICHAEL PERKINS
Defendant:
DOES, 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacities as Police Officers for the CITY OF ANAHEIM Police Department, CASEY MORRISON, individually and in his capacity as a police officer for the CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation and others
Defendant / Appellant:
RICKY REYNOSO, individually and in his capacity as a police officer for the CITY OF ANAHEIM and KENNETH EDGAR, individually and in his capacity as a police officer for the CITY OF ANAHEIM
Rachel Stewart, et al v. Norcold, Inc., et al
as 21-1782
Plaintiff / Appellant:
William Stewart and Rachel Stewart
Defendant / Appellee:
Thetford Corporation, Camping World, Inc., doing business as Camping World of Rogers, Does 1-50, inclusive and others
Dominique Evans, et al v. County of Los Angeles, et al
as 21-55406
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DARRYL JOHNSON, an individual and DOMINIQUE EVANS, an individual, AKA Dominique Evans-Franks
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, MARK LILLIENFIELD, an individual, DANA ORENT, an individual and others
Defendant:
DOES, 1-50, inclusive
Dominique Evans, et al v. County of Los Angeles, et al
as 21-55503
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DOMINIQUE EVANS, an individual, AKA Dominique Evans-Franks and DARRYL JOHNSON, an individual
Defendant:
DANA ORENT, an individual, CITY OF PASADENA, a municipal entity and DOES, 1-50, inclusive
Defendant / Appellant:
MIKE RODRIGUEZ, an individual, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity and MARK LILLIENFIELD, an individual
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.
