Cases 21 - 30 of 342
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv01068
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Carroll et al v. Waterman Excavating, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv02027
Plaintiff:
Michael Carroll and Marian Carroll
Defendant:
Waterman Excavating, Inc. and Cecil Lipscomb, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
CHAMBERS et al v. SD HOLDINGS, LLC et al
as 2:2017cv00070
Plaintiff:
CHRIS CHAMBERS , DANIEL WAINWRIGHT , GARY CHAPA and others
Defendant:
SD HOLDINGS, LLC, EVOLUTION ENERGY CHEMICAL COMPANY, EVOLUTION ENERGY INCORPORATED and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv01202
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MOSENSON v. CELEBRITY HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv06519
Plaintiff:
CECIL MOSENSON
Defendant:
CELEBRITY HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., EYE FILM RELEASING, INC. and ROBERT FEINSTEIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SMITH v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2015cv01449
Petitioner:
LAVON CECIL SMITH
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ray v. Ebbert et al
as 3:2015cv01424
Plaintiff:
Cecil Ray
Defendant:
Ebbert, John Doe #1, Rosler and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2015cv00887
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (IMMIGRATION)
MOORE v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC.
as 2:2014cv07378
Plaintiff:
CECILE MOORE
Defendant:
THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
CECIL et al v. PFIZER, INC. et al
as 2:2014cv02500
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINA CECIL and ANDREW CECIL
Defendant:
PFIZER, INC., PFIZER INTERNATIONAL LLC, J.B. ROERIG & COMPANY and others
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.
