Cases 1 - 10 of 91
Justin Mahwikizi v. Thomas M. Durkin
as 23-3369
Petitioner:
JUSTIN MAHWIKIZI
Respondent:
THOMAS M. DURKIN
Interested Party:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC
Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
as 23-3445
Petitioner:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC and RASIER-CA, LLC
Respondent:
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Not Classified By Court:
JANE DOE LS 340, an individual, KATHERINE HYLIN, an individual, E. R., an individual and others
R. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as CAN/3:23-CV-04706
Plaintiff:
R. and B. R.
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Cormier v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as CAN/3:23-CV-04745
Plaintiff:
Cormier and Joshua Cormier
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Jane Doe LS 159 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as CAN/3:23-CV-04365
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe LS 159
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and others
LS 231 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al
as CAN/4:23-CV-04367
Plaintiff:
LS 231 and Jane Doe LS 231
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc.,, Rasier, LLC and others
R.T. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al
as CAN/4:23-CV-04301
Plaintiff:
R.T. and R T
Defendant:
Uber Technologies Inc, Rasier LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Jane Doe LS 91 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al
as CAN/4:23-CV-04368
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe LS 91
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc.,, Rasier, LLC and others
LS 144 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al
as CAN/4:23-CV-04388
Plaintiff:
LS 144 and Jane Doe LS 144
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc.,, Rasier, LLC and others
LS 37 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al
as CAN/4:23-CV-04393
Plaintiff:
LS 37 and Jane Doe LS 37
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber Technologies, Inc.,, Rasier, LLC 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.
