Cases 11 - 20 of 31
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00679
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 623
Sena v. Lion Inspection Services, Inc. et al
as 4:2017cv01453
Defendant:
Lion Inspection Services, Inc. and Milko Sierra
Plaintiff:
Abran Sena
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Jovic v. Colvin
as 2:2016cv04483
Plaintiff:
Milko Jovic
Defendant:
Carolyn W Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Long et al v. Top Line Express, Inc. et al
as 3:2016cv00589
Plaintiff:
Robert Long and Cathy Long
Defendant:
Top Line Express, Inc. , Leszek Grabinski , Roger Stone and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv08291
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrim
United States of America et al v. DJO Global Inc. et al
as 2:2012cv07152
Defendant:
Biomet, Inc., DJO Finance LLC, DJO Global Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
District of Columbia, Russ Milko, Doris Modglin and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
MILKO v. VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv00044
Plaintiff:
PATRICIA MILKO
Defendant:
VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and DOE 1-5
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Abdelaziz v. City of New York et al
as 2:2013cv07268
Defendant:
Jane 2:13cv7268 Doe, John 2:13cv7268 Doe, City of New York and others
Plaintiff:
Gamal Abdelaziz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv07270
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
William Poku v. William Himelman, et al
as 10-4759
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM POKU
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM HIMELMAN, Honorable, in his profesional and individual capacities, CENTRAL JERSEY TOWING, MILKO, Officer, in his official and individual capacities and others
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.
