Cases 21 - 30 of 763
Williams v. City of Tacoma et al
as 3:2024cv05056
Plaintiff:
Tavon Williams
Defendant:
City of Tacoma, Khahn Phan, John and Jane Doe Officers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Nguyen, et al. v. City of Garden Grove, et al.
as 24-189
Plaintiff / Appellant:
AARON NGUYEN, NGOC LE THI PHAN and HOANG MINH NGUYEN
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, MARK LORD, MICHAEL REYNOLDS and others
Kenny Phan et al v. Nayax LTD et al
as 8:2024cv00061
Plaintiff:
Kenny Phan and George Samaha
Defendant:
Nayax LTD, Nayax LLC and DOES 1 through DOE 10, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Patent Infringement
Ou-Young v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office, et al
as 3:2023cv06597
Plaintiff:
Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young
Defendant:
Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Merrick B. Garland, Gregory J. Ahern and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Gaines v. Zhou et al
as 1:2023cv06561
Plaintiff:
Jacobi Gaines
Defendant:
Y. Zhou, M. Jaejer, R. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Smith v. Sacramento County et al
as 2:2023cv02919
Plaintiff:
Travis Smith
Defendant:
Sacramento County, Phan and Colley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv06458
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-20598
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv02129
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv04315
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.
