Cases 81 - 90 of 764
John v. Brooklyn Eye Center et al
as 1:2022cv06190
Plaintiff:
Abigale K John
Defendant:
Brooklyn Eye Center, Harooni & Sheindlin M.D. P.C., Christina Vasquez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv05955
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Parker v. Haaland et al
as 1:2022cv08107
Plaintiff:
Jamal Parker
Defendant:
Debra Anne Haaland, Andrew Saul, Charles Paul Rettig Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Robinson v. Williams et al
as 6:2022cv00982
Plaintiff:
Sheila Robinson
Defendant:
Mark Williams, Kyle Piersall, John De Traglia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2022cv08097
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv07709
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12132 Americans with Disabilities Act - Discrimination
Woodson v. McCoy et al
as 1:2022cv07230
Plaintiff:
Kenneth H. Woodson
Defendant:
Lisaraye McCoy and K&M Consulting & Taxing
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv06961
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1415 IDEA: Challenge decision re education for handicapped
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv06959
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Todd v. Eisele et al
as 1:2022cv06968
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Ramael Todd
Defendant:
Brett Eisele, Antony Blinken, Alejandra Mayorkas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
