Cases 1 - 10 of 15
POMASKI v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al
as 3:2023cv10764
Plaintiff:
JASON POMASKI
Defendant:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICHAEL INDENBOM, CHADD TATE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal- Civil Rights Act
NGUYEN et al v. TOWNSHIP OF DEPTFORD et al
as 1:2019cv15023
Defendant:
DONALD BANKS, DINA L. ZAWADSKI, PAUL MEDANY and others
Plaintiff:
VIP NAIL & SPA SALON LLC and TOMMY NGUYEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2019cv04890
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
3Rd Party Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Brooks v. Nguyen et al
as 1:2019cv00464
Defendant:
Officer Taylor, Paul Nguyen and OFFICER PAUL NGUYEN
Plaintiff:
A H and NIEMA BROOKS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv01971
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
NGUYEN v. SELTZER et al
as 2:2012cv06073
Plaintiff:
JACQUELINE NGUYEN
Defendant:
JOEL C. SELTZER and HARMON H. LOOKHOFF
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv06072
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
NGUYEN v. WASHLAND LAUNDROMAT
as 2:2012cv06071
Plaintiff:
JACQUELINE NGUYEN
Defendant:
WASHLAND LAUNDROMAT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv04777
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
NGUYEN V SCAMPATO,et al
as 2:2012cv04304
Plaintiff:
JACQUELINE NGUYEN
Defendant:
FRED SHAHROOZ SCAMPATO, SPEVACK & CANNAN, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS OF SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
