Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Ifeji v. Garland
as 24-484
Defendant:
BRETT EISELE, central pinal justice court precinct 3 judge et al., Central Pinal Justice Court Precinct 3 HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, MARIAN BROWN, dallas county sherrif et al., DALLAS COUNTY SHERRIFS OFFICE HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, GLENN HEGAR, texas secretary of state et al., TEXAS COMPTROLLERS OFFICE HEIRS AND ASSIGNS and others
Plaintiff:
JAZZLYN SHABERA IFEJI, a Mooress beneficiary EMPRESS JAZLIN TRUST A Empress, Admiral, Mariner A, Merchant, Piloter Nations a private Moor aboriginal texan national territory of Spain, JAZZLYN SHABERA IFEJI ESTATE ET. AL., beneficiary, JOSEPH EDDIE PRYOR ESTATE ET AL., beneficiary JOSEPH EDDIE PRYOR et al. and others
Kakar Kurtz v. Dr. Marie Lupica
as 23-7548
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHVETA KAKAR KURTZ, DANIEL L. KURTZ, solely in their roles as parentguardians, AMNA KAKAR KURTZ, a minor child and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MARIE LUPICA, as an individual, Treating Physician and State Actor Operating Under Color of Law and NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, /WeillCornell Medical Center
Defendant:
DAVID HANSELL, as the Duly Appointed Commissioner of the New York City Administration for Children's Services, DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION, CITY OF NEW YORK and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01775
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Richards v. City of New York Comptroller
as 21-2704
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Alroy Richards
Defendant / Appellee:
City of New York Comptroller, New York City Parks and Recreation, City of New York and others
Defendant:
Equal Opportunity Commission
Singleton v. City of New York Comptroller
as 21-1000
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Aaron Singleton
Defendant / Appellee:
New York State Child Support, New York Department of Soical Service, City of New York Comptroller Office and others
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.
