Cases 31 - 40 of 63
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00406
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv00251
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Robbins v. Ingram et al
as 5:2014ct03063
Plaintiff:
Alexander Robbins, Sr.
Defendant:
John Ingram and C/O Sullivian
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
ERLWEIN et al v. WATLINGTON et al
as 1:2013cv00986
Plaintiff:
THEODORE ERLWEIN and HIGH SIERRA CONSULTING, LLC
Defendant:
ROBBIN EUGENE WATLINGTON , HLC GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. and RAYMOND ROBERTSON
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Young v. Holder, Jr. et al
as 5:2012hc02256
Petitioner:
Leonard Young
Respondent:
Eric Holder, Jr., Kevin Robbins, Bill Schvetta and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC et al v. WHD Enterprises, LLC et al
as 3:2012cv00656
Plaintiff:
Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC , DD IP Holder, LLC , Baskin-Robbins Franchising, LLC and others
Defendant:
WHD Enterprises, LLC, AND Enterprises, LLC and Waheed Dode
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
Young v. Holder, Jr. et al
as 5:2012mc00053
Plaintiff:
Leonard Young
Defendant:
Eric Holder, Jr., Kevin Robbins, Bill Schvetta and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00623
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
ROBBINS v. USA
as 1:2012cv00938
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
KETAE JEMEL ROBBINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Baskin-Robbins Franchised Shops, LLC v. The Harger Company, et al
as 5:2012cv00253
Plaintiff:
Baskin-Robbins Franchised Shops, LLC
Defendant:
The Harger Company and Roberta Kay Harger
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
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.
