Cases 31 - 40 of 408
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00518
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Cheng v. Merritt et al
as 4:2023cv00975
Plaintiff:
Abby Cheng
Defendant:
Douglas S. Merritt, Jason E Child, Sara J. Baack and others
Mary James v. PC Matic, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv01506
Plaintiff:
Mary James
Defendant:
PC Matic, Inc., Rob Cheng and Does 1 through 25, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01401
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01376
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 3:2023cv00697
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc. et al.
as 3:2023cv00282
Plaintiff:
Patrick Woldanski
Defendant:
TuSimple Holdings, Inc., Cheng Lu, Patrick Dillon and others
Petitioner:
George Maurizi, Guy Donald Foulkes, Ronald Betsworth and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0077 Securities Fraud
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023at00116
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00207
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00530
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
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.
