Cases 71 - 80 of 1,166
Gilbert MartinezIn re: Gilbert Martinez
as 22-2372
Petitioner:
In re: GILBERT M. MARTINEZ
Respondent:
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY and PAUL S. DIAMOND
Diamond Barnes v. Deanna Brookhart
as 22-2317
Applicant:
DIAMOND L. BARNES
Respondent:
DEANNA BROOKHART
In re: Omar McBride
as 22-2226
Petitioner:
In re: OMAR MCBRIDE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and PAUL S. DIAMOND
Navarro v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv01164
Plaintiff:
Georgina Navarro
Defendant:
Schell & Kampeter, Inc. Doing business as Diamond Pet Foods and Diamond Pet Food Processors of California, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act
Navarro v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc. et al
as 1:2022at00505
Plaintiff:
Georgina Navarro
Defendant:
Schell & Kampeter, Inc. (doing business as DIAMOND PET FOODS), a foreign corporation, Diamond Pet Food Processors of California, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Acly et al v. Ford Motor Company
as DE/1:22-CV-00835
Plaintiff:
Acly, Christopher Acly, Tim Altaner and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Daffern et al v. Ford Motor Company
as DE/1:22-CV-00817
Plaintiff:
Daffern, Brycen Daffern, David Dahl and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Mitchell et al v. Benton Harbor, City of et al
as 1:2022cv00475
Plaintiff:
Iesha Mitchell, Kea N. Bennett, Christine Anderson and others
Defendant:
Benton Harbor, City of, Marcus Muhammad, Michael O'Malley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00848
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Diamond Plastics Corporation
as 3:2022cv00235
Plaintiff:
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Defendant:
Diamond Plastics Corporation
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.
