Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Gu v. Chen et al
as 1:2024cv05113
Defendant:
United States of America, Chat Mui Chan, RE/MAX Real Estate Professionals and others
Plaintiff:
Feifei Gu
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gu v. Chen et al
as 1:2024cv04756
Defendant:
252685 ST LLC, RE/MAX Real Estate Professionals, Complaint THE LLC D/B/A. Xiao Guo Group Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Feifei Gu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Gu v. Chen et al
as 1:2024cv05209
Defendant:
Chat Mui Chan, RE/MAX Real Estate Professionals, Hang Chen and others
Plaintiff:
Feifei Gu
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gu v. Chen et al
as 1:2024cv04612
Defendant:
252685 ST LLC, RE/MAX Real Estate Professionals, Erik Carlson and others
Plaintiff:
Feifei Gu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Linares v. Annucci et al
as 7:2019cv11120
Defendant:
Ellen E. Alexander, Erik Berliner, Tycee Drake and others
Plaintiff:
Jorge L. Linares
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henderson et al v. City of New York et al
as 1:2018cv08551
Defendant:
Laura Evans, Erika Wong, Murphy and others
Plaintiff:
C.O. Edwin Stevenson, Crisnicole Henderson and Desmond Dutchin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv02424
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Chan v. USA
as 1:2018cv01797
Petitioner:
Brian Chan
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv04640
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Maxwell v. Vance et al
as 1:2017cv01644
Plaintiff:
Jerome Maxwell
Defendant:
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Marquez Brooks, Milton Adair Tingling 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.
