Cases 21 - 30 of 33
Elliot et al v. Cordis Corporation et al
as 3:2016cv05055
Plaintiff:
Stacey Elliot , Pamela Montez , Michael Jones and others
Defendant:
Cordis Corporation and Confluent Medical Technologies, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2016cv04107
Plaintiff:
Michael Jones, Jr.
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Ronald Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv04496
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Campos et al v. Failla et al
as 3:2015cv00790
Plaintiff:
Edward Campos, Brian Blatz and Scott Noll
Defendant:
Michael Failla, Robert Moberg, Integrated Practice Solutions, Inc. a Washington corporation doing business as Chirotouch and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Michael Jones v. M Wurm et al
as 5:2015cv00289
Defendant:
3 Unknown, Unknown Classification Officer, Unknown Classification Officer and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Jones
Unniebe Solomon et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
as 2:2012cv05049
Plaintiff:
Allyson Allen, Ethel Caroleen Allen, Earmedine Armfield and others
Defendant:
AstraZeneca PLC, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Does and others
Disney Enterprises Inc v. Michael Jones et al
as 2:2012cv03637
Plaintiff:
Disney Enterprises Inc
Defendant:
Does and Michael Jones
Corey G. Clements, D.C. v. Pan-American Life Insurance Company et al
as 2:2009cv01706
Plaintiff:
Corey G. Clements
Defendant:
Pan-American Life Insurance Company, Pan-American Life Insurance Company, Pan-American Assurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jones v. Martel
as 1:2008cv01192
Petitioner:
Michael Jones
Respondent:
Martel
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Jones v. Martel
as 2:2008cv01933
Petitioner:
Michael Jones
Respondent:
Martel
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
