Cases 21 - 30 of 155
THOMAS v. VAZQUEZ ROSA et al
as 5:2021cv05347
Plaintiff:
MR ROBERT THOMAS and ROBERT THOMAS
Defendant:
JOSE EMANUEL VAZQUEZ ROSA, BLANCA V, LLC and AA TRANSPORTATION 2, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HACKETT v. DUNIO et al
as 3:2021cv00203
Plaintiff:
CORY L. HACKETT
Defendant:
PTLM MATTHEW DUNIO and ALEX VAZQUEZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Vazquez v. Warden of SCI-Dallas et al
as 3:2021cv01928
Petitioner:
Danny Vazquez
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Dallas and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VAZQUEZ v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, ET AL.
as 2:2021cv04624
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO VAZQUEZ
Defendant:
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and JOHN DOE CORPORATION 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
VAZQUEZ v. THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA-COMMONWEALTH
as 5:2021cv04179
Plaintiff:
DANNY RIVAS VAZQUEZ
Defendant:
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA-COMMONWEALTH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REYES OVALLE et al v. HARRIS BLACKTOPPING, INC. et al
as 2:2021cv03591
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN ROSALIO REYES OVALLE, JUAN MARIO REYES OVALLE, LUIS MIGUEL ROQUE OVALLE and others
Defendant:
HARRIS BLACKTOPPING, INC. doing business as HARRIS PAVING, JAMES W HARRIS, JR., HARRY A HARRIS and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Vazquez Calderon v. Saul
as 1:2021cv01075
Defendant:
Andrew Saul
Plaintiff:
Suhaily I. Vazquez Calderon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Vazquez v. Quay
as 1:2021cv01049
Petitioner:
Justin Vazquez
Respondent:
Warden H. Quay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Vazquez-Rosario v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv00924
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal-Mart and others
Plaintiff:
Omayra Vazquez-Rosario
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00500
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
