Cases 1 - 10 of 45
Richard v. Combs et al
as 1:2024cv06848
Defendant:
Remote Productions Inc., The Nordlinger Group, LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Dawn Angelique Richard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
English v. Combs et al
as 1:2024cv05090
Defendant:
Penske Media Corporation, Vibe Magazine, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Adria English
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
English v. Combs et al
as 1:2024cv05087
Defendant:
Vibe Magazine, Penske Media Corporation, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Adira English
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Emrit v. Combs et al
as 1:2024cv03624
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Sean P. Diddy Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment and Atlantic Records
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 pi Diversity-Personal Injury
Ronald Emrit v. Sean Combs, et al
as 24-3405
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN COMBS, aka P. Diddy, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and ATLANTIC RECORDS CORP.
Emrit v Combs, et al
as 8:2024cv01075
Defendant:
Sean Combs, P. Diddy, Bad Boy Entertainment and others
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Emrit v. Combs
as 24-40247
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Sean Combs, also known as P. Diddy, Bad Boy Entertainment and Atlantic Records
Ronald Emrit v. Sean Combs, et al
as 24-1310
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN COMBS, aka P. Diddy, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and ATLANTIC RECORDS CORP.
Emrit v. Combs, et al
as 24-3055
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN COMBS, AKA P. Diddy, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group (WMG)
Emrit v. Combs, et al
as 24-6067
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN COMBS, AKA P. Diddy, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS
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.
