Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00431
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 American Disabilities Act
Eun Lim v. City of Irvine, et al
as 23-55661
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EUN JUNG LIM
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF IRVINE, CITY OF IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RENE NUTTER, Police Officer, Badge No. 635, individual and official capacity and others
Eun Lim v. City of Irvine, et al
as 23-55221
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EUN JUNG LIM
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF IRVINE, CITY OF IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RENE NUTTER, Police Officer, Badge No. 635, individual and official capacity and others
Eun Lim v. City of Irvine, et al
as 23-55178
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EUN JUNG LIM
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF IRVINE, CITY OF IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RENE NUTTER, Police Officer, Badge No. 635, individual and official capacity and others
Eun Jung Lim v. Irvine City et al
as 8:2022cv00137
Plaintiff:
Eun Jung Lim
Defendant:
Irvine City, Sergeant-Detective Sean Paul Crawford, Michele Hinig and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv06487
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Michael Lhevan v. City of Irvine et al
as 8:2021cv01418
Plaintiff:
Michael Lhevan
Defendant:
City of Irvine, Michael Hamel, Joe Monroe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamel v. City of New York
as 18-1229
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Michael Hamel
Defendant - Appellee:
City of New York, Commissioner Joseph Ponte, Deputy Warden of Adm Pennye L. Jones and others
Hamel v. City of New York et al
as 1:2015cv06324
Defendant:
City of New York, Deputy Warden of Adm Pennye L. Jones, Commissioner Joseph Ponte and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Hamel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
