Cases 1 - 10 of 11
THOMAS v. PLUMERI et al
as 2:2023cv20372
Plaintiff:
ARNETT L. THOMAS
Defendant:
SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, JR., JOHN CRAIG, COMMAND STAFF SUPERISOR DISTRICT #9 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
THOMAS et al v. TRUMP
as 2:2021cv03111
Plaintiff:
ARNETT L. THOMAS, FREDDIE BROWN III, LUIS JUAREZ and others
Defendant:
DONALD JOHN TRUMP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
THOMAS v. NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER et al
as 2:2017cv12359
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER, PROGRAM FOR ASSERTIVE TREATMENT, ROSA MARTINEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. CARE PLUS OF NEW JERSEY INC.
as 2:2017cv10547
Defendant:
CARE PLUS OF NEW JERSEY INC.
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. LANTERN RESTAURANT
as 2:2016cv02305
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
LANTERN RESTAURANT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. VALUE REALTY INC., et al
as 2:2015cv07877
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
VALUE REALTY INC., BERGEN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY and STATE FARM, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
THOMAS v. VALUE REALTY INC. et al
as 2:2013cv00658
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
VALUE REALTY INC., STATE FARM, HABAC (Housing Authority of Bergen County) and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Housing Discrimination
THOMAS v. ADVANCE HOUSING INC. et al
as 2:2011cv01426
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
ADVANCE HOUSING INC. , JOHN DOES 1-10 and XYZ CORP. 1-10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
THOMAS v. RAMAPO COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 2:2010cv03898
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
RAMAPO COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY, PAMELA BISCHOFF, DR., IVY PAYNE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
THOMAS v. RUTGERS LAW NEWARK et al
as 2:2010cv00214
Plaintiff:
JAY L. THOMAS
Defendant:
RUTGERS LAW NEWARK and RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
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.
