Cases 31 - 40 of 228
GOMEZ v. D & R PAVING LLC et al
as 2:2023cv02407
Plaintiff:
Segundo Gomez
Defendant:
D & R Paving LLC and DANIEL THOMAS
TAYLOR v. GOMEZ et al
as 2:2023cv01355
Plaintiff:
JHAQUILL TAYLOR
Defendant:
DIRECTOR OSCAR AVILES and S. GOMEZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GOMEZ REMIGIO v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2023cv01262
Cross Defendant:
LUIS M. GOMEZ REMIGIO and JOHN DOES 1-10 (fictitiously named individuals)
Cross Claimant:
CALVIN J. THOMPSON
Defendant:
ABC COMPANIES 1-10 (fictitiously named business entities)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
GOMEZ v. AVILES et al
as 2:2023cv01266
Plaintiff:
YOUSTIN B. GOMEZ
Defendant:
DIRECTOR OSCAR AVILES and NURSE WINT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv07311
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
GOMEZ v. TARGET CORPORATION et al
as 2:2022cv06298
Plaintiff:
SHANNON GOMEZ
Defendant:
TARGET CORPORATION, ABC CO. 1-10 and JOHN DOE 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv06247
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
CANTOS v. GUTIERRIZ-GOMEZ et al
as 2:2022cv05958
Plaintiff:
RICARDO J. CANTOS
Defendant:
ROBERTO GUTIERRIZ-GOMEZ and ELIZABETH TRANSPORT LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
GOMEZ v. DIMONTE et al
as 1:2022cv05528
Plaintiff:
JORGE GOMEZ
Defendant:
D.O. RICHARD DIMONTE, FOOD ADMINISTRATOR REDFORD and AHSA G. MARTIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
GOMEZ v. MONA LISA PIZZERIA, INC. et al
as 2:2022cv05146
Plaintiff:
JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ
Defendant:
MONA LISA PIZZERIA, INC. and CHRISTOPHER COCCHI
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.
