Cases 11 - 20 of 47
ALLEN v. SMITH et al
as 2:2019cv03300
Defendant:
CARA MCMEANS, HARRY HALL, JODI LUKENS and others
Plaintiff:
TODD ALLEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
OSBORNE et al v. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF KRAFT HEINZ et al
as 2:2019cv00307
Plaintiff:
JOHN OSBORNE, BRIAN COLEMAN and EVE COLEMAN
Defendant:
DAVID KNOPF, GREG GUIDOTTI, JOHN DOES 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
BULLARD et al v. SMEAL et al
as 2:2019cv01186
Defendant:
SHELIA MOORE SMEAL, DAVID CLOSE, KENNETH HOLLIBAUGH and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES FOY BULLARD and ABDUL IDEEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv05558
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02518
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Sullivan et al v. Rankin et al
as 1:2016cv02546
Plaintiff:
Frank J. Sullivan , Harold Blewitt, Jr. and Ulash Damodar
Defendant:
Russell Rankin, EV Ventures, Inc., Mid Atlantic Gem, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
BARBIERI et al v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2016cv03748
Plaintiff:
PIETRO A. BARBIERI and JEAN MARIE BARBIERI
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BRIAN COSGRIFF and ANITA EVE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
HAUSER v. COLVIN
as 3:2016cv00033
Plaintiff:
EVE HAUSER
Defendant:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv05474
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
BOWERS v. ADAM AND EVE STORES et al
as 2:2015cv01198
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BOWERS
Defendant:
ADAM AND EVE STORES , CALIFORNIA EXOCTIC NOVELTIES LLC and DIAMOND PRODUCTS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
