Cases 31 - 40 of 52
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Agricultural Management and Production Company, et al
as 2:2014cv02328
Defendant:
Robert Smythe and Agricultural Management and Production Company, Inc.
Plaintiff:
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1319
Smythe v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
as 3:2014cv01121
Plaintiff:
Robin Smythe
Defendant:
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Timothy Patrick McLanahan v. Brad Grey et al
as 2:2013cv09381
Defendant:
J. Abrams, Bad Robot, Inc., Brian Burke and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Patrick McLanahan
Netanel et al v. San Diego, City of et al
as 3:2013cv02604
Plaintiff:
Adam Netanel and Davide Carpano
Defendant:
San Diego, City of , William Lansdowne, Boyd Long and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Albayrak et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
as 4:2013cv03095
Plaintiff:
Mike Albayrak , Terry Brewer , Phyllis Carter and others
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation and SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
Kevin Smyth v. Yu Chang et al
as 2:2013cv03008
Defendant:
Gene Michael Bennett, Yu Chang, China Agritech Inc and others
Movant:
Kim Group, Robert Omes and Victor van de Reijt Holding BV
Plaintiff:
Gary Sandlass and Kevin Smyth
Smyth v. Duffy
as 3:2013cv00487
Petitioner:
Robert Smyth
Respondent:
P. Duffy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv01835
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012at01465
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv08219
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
