Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Douglas v. Collins et al
as 2:2024cv00421
Plaintiff:
Matthew Douglas
Defendant:
Stacey Collins and Rachel Calderon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Love et al v. Pond et al
as 2:2023cv02149
Plaintiff:
Teresa Love and Vietta Hankins
Defendant:
Rachel Pond, John Vance, Sheldon G. Turley, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lujan et al v. State of Nevada et al
as 3:2021cv00152
Defendant:
State of Nevada, John Trice, J. Trice and others
Plaintiff:
Clients and Michael V. Lujan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00971
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00180
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00195
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Castellanos et al v. City of Reno, et al
as 3:2019cv00693
Plaintiff:
Maryann Rose Brooks, Rachel Jasper, Brianna Morales and others
Defendant:
City of Reno, Nevada, Michael Chaump and Reno, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morris v. Caberto et al
as 2:2016cv02416
Defendant:
Boyd Gaming Corporation, Mitchell Caberto, Jeffery Fine and others
Plaintiff:
Brent Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Morris v. Nevada Gaming Control Board et al
as 3:2016cv00604
Defendant:
Boyd Gaming Corporation, Mitchell Caberto, Rachel Martines and others
Plaintiff:
Brent Morris
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kanvick v. Braunworth et al
as 3:2016cv00053
Defendant:
Michael Braunworth, Rachel Braunworth, Isaac Fabian and others
Plaintiff:
Scott Kanvick
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.
