Cases 31 - 40 of 40
Sik Gaek, Incorporated v. Marcus Harris, et al
as 14-1196
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SIK GAEK, INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellee:
MARCUS HARRIS, DANIEL KIM and YOGI'S II, INCORPORATED
Sik Gaek, Inc. v. Kim et al
as 1:2013cv06624
Plaintiff:
Sik Gaek, Inc.
Defendant:
Daniel Kim and Yogi's II, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Type:
Other Statutes
Yoon v. Jamaica French Cleaners, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv03845
Defendant:
Jamaica French Cleaners, Inc., Daniel Kim, In Young Kim and others
Plaintiff:
Suk Han Yoon
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kim et al
as 1:2010cv06693
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
David Y Kim, Daniel Kim and G. Zone, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Sik Gaek, Inc. v. Yogi's II, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv04077
Defendant:
Daniel Kim and Yogi's II, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Chul Ho Park and Silk Gaek, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
RM Yogurt Hawaii LLC v. Red Mango Franchise Company et al
as 3:2010cv01292
Plaintiff:
RM Yogurt Hawaii LLC
Defendant:
Red Mango Franchise Company , Daniel Kim and Doe Defendants 1-20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
RM Yogurt Hawaii LLC v. Red Mango Franchise Company et al
as 1:2010cv00157
Plaintiff:
RM Yogurt Hawaii LLC
Defendant:
Red Mango Franchise Company , Daniel Kim and Doe Defendants 1-20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute
KIM v. LIM
as 2:2008cv03874
Plaintiff:
DANIEL KIM
Defendant:
DAVID LIM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
KIM v. STV NETWORKS, INC.
as 2:2008cv03875
Plaintiff:
DANIEL KIM
Defendant:
STV NETWORKS, INC.
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Koi Group Inc v. Koi Sushi and Roll et al
as 8:2008cv00300
Plaintiff:
Koi Group Inc
Defendant:
Koi Sushi and Roll, Daniel Kim and DOES
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
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.
