Cases 51 - 60 of 118
Styles v. Red Lobster Hospitality LLC
as 2:2018cv01361
Plaintiff:
Rosalie Styles
Defendant:
Red Lobster Hospitality LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Miller v. TIGER STYLE CORPORATION, et al
as 2:2018cv02275
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Miller
Defendant:
Tiger Style Corporation , HARMAN DEEP SINGH BRAR, Cox Transportation Services, Inc. and others
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
Kristi Rose
Thirdparty_defendant:
Cox Transportation Services, Inc. , ROGER CAUSEY , Tiger Style Corporation and others
Miscellaneou:
Jimmy Moore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Griffith v. Style America Hair Salon et al
as 1:2018cv00317
Plaintiff:
Judith Griffith
Defendant:
Style America Hair Salon and Regis Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Styles v. Air Serve Corporation
as 3:2018cv00692
Plaintiff:
Teel S Styles
Defendant:
Air Serve Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
Styles v. Walmart Sam's Club
as 3:2018cv00444
Plaintiff:
Teel S Styles
Defendant:
Walmart Sam's Club
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Styles v. Janssen Research & Development LLC et al
as 2:2018cv01868
Defendant:
Janssen Research & Development LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Ortho LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Earnest Styles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Styles et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv04458
Plaintiff:
Charlotte Styles and Jimmy Styles
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Styles v. McDonalds Restaurant
as 4:2017cv00791
Plaintiff:
Teel S Styles
Defendant:
McDonalds Restaurant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Styles v. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
as 3:2017cv02256
Plaintiff:
Teel S Styles
Defendant:
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Styles v. McDonalds Restaurant
as 3:2017cv02200
Plaintiff:
Teel S Styles
Defendant:
McDonalds Restaurant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
