Cases 11 - 20 of 684
Nathan v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv05734
Plaintiff:
Miriam Nathan
Defendant:
ServiceSource International, Inc., Gary B. Moore, Richard Walker and others
Stein v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv04717
Plaintiff:
Shiva Stein
Defendant:
ServiceSource International, Inc., Andrew M. Baker, Jane Okun Bomba and others
Arbeeny v. Cuomo et al
as 1:2022cv02336
Plaintiff:
Daniel N. Arbeeny
Defendant:
Andrew M. Cuomo, The State of New York, Melissa DelRosa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Newman v. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00545
Plaintiff:
Fred Newman
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Le v. GCP Applied Technologies, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00750
Plaintiff:
Phuong Holly Le
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies, Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Waterman v. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00583
Plaintiff:
Marc Waterman
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Stein v. GCP Applied Technologies, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00436
Plaintiff:
Shiva Stein
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies, Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv11154
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv11152
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Gardner v. Hochul et al
as 7:2021cv10185
Plaintiff:
Phillip Jerome Gardner
Defendant:
Ms. Kathy Hochul, Dr. Carl J. Koeigsman, Dept. of Corrections 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.
