Cases 41 - 50 of 51
Danielson v. Brennan et al
as 2:2016cv00476
Defendant:
Megan J. Brennan and U.S. Postal Service
Plaintiff:
Veronica Danielson
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
Roller v. Brennan et al
as 2:2016cv00257
Plaintiff:
Minda R. Roller
Defendant:
Megan J Brennan and Daniel Wallace
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704
Ruiz-Justiniano v. United States Postal Service et al
as 3:2016cv01526
Plaintiff:
Jose A. Ruiz-Justiniano
Defendant:
United States Postal Service, Megan J. Brennan and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Shaw v. Brennan et al
as 6:2016cv00278
Plaintiff:
Phillip W. Shaw
Defendant:
Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service and National Association of Letter Carriers
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Omogoke v. Brennan
as 8:2015cv03457
Plaintiff:
Sunday J. Omogoke
Defendant:
Megan J. Brennan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Leonard Fuqua v. Megan Brennan, et al
as 15-3226
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LEONARD FUQUA
Defendant - Appellee:
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, in her official capacity and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Chicago District Office, sue in its official capacity as a mail distribution center funded by the United States Government operating and existing under the laws of the State Government under the laws of the State of Illinois
FREEMAN v. BRENNAN et al
as 2:2015cv01102
Plaintiff:
ALFONSO FREEMAN
Defendant:
MEGAN J. BRENNAN and AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION AFL-CIO, PITTSBURGH METRO AREA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Ford v. Brennan
as 2:2015cv00539
Plaintiff:
Howard O. Ford
Defendant:
Megan J. Brennan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
McCarthy v. Brennan
as 3:2015cv03308
Plaintiff:
Kian R. McCarthy
Defendant:
Megan J. Brennan
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
Lake-Seibert v. Brennan
as 2:2015cv00925
Plaintiff:
Kimberly S Lake-Seibert
Defendant:
Megan J Brennan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
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.
