Cases filed in New Jersey
Cases 11 - 20 of 21
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02609
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
PENG v. AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC. et al
as 3:2017cv00119
Plaintiff: BIXING PENG
Defendant: AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC., ALFRED ALTOMARI and ELIZABETH GARNER
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
GOH v. NORI O INC. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2016cv02811
Plaintiff: JIT SHI GOH
Defendant: NORI O INC., OTAYA SHUSHI II INC., PENG L. TAM and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
GOH v. NORI O INC. et al
as 2:2015cv07963
Plaintiff: JIT SHI GOH
Defendant: NORI O INC., OTAYA SUSHI II INC., PENG L. TAM and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2014cv00538
Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Type: Bankruptcy Appeal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv05991
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
PENG et al v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.
as 1:2012cv00793
Plaintiff: ELVIRA PENG and DANIEL CHIONG
Defendant: CITIMORTGAGE INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PENG et al v. CITIMORTGAGE INC. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2012cv00395
Plaintiff: ELVIRA PENG and DANIEL CHIONG
Defendant: CITIMORTGAGE, INC. , MERS and SOURCE ONE MORTGAGE INC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
TEE et al v. BINENSTOCK
as 2:2009cv02909
Plaintiff: SUAT LAN TEE and PENG WONG LOW
Defendant: GLORIA H. BINENSTOCK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv04955
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

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.


Why Is My Information Online?