Cases 21 - 30 of 109
EZEKWO v. FAY SERVICING, LLC
as 2:2023cv00379
Plaintiff:
IFEOMA EZEKWO
Defendant:
FAY SERVICING, LLC, US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and VRMTG ASSET TRUST MORTGAGEE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv07348
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv07225
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv05363
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
Jaye v. United States et al (MAG +)
as 1:2022cv05328
Defendant:
KNUCKLES, KOMOSINSKI & MANFRO, LLP, BERMAN, SAUTER, RECORD & JARDIM, PC, Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Chris Jaye
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv01681
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv01681
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
ROSENFELD v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC et al
as 1:2022cv01028
Plaintiff:
CARL ROSENFELD
Defendant:
LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, LOOMIS US and JOHN DOES 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
MELEIKA v. US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
as 2:2021cv20795
Plaintiff:
STEVEN MELEIKA
Defendant:
US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv20278
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
