Cases 31 - 40 of 1,071
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv05209
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv05036
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rogers v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
as 23-3949
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRIAN F. ROGERS
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv05786
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv05691
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv06002
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Haynes, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
as 23-3327
Plaintiff:
CHERYL COTTERILL
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Defendant:
MATHEW MASON, HUGH HALL, GREGORY HICKS and others
Not Yet Classified:
GREGORY MELVIN HAYNES, ATTORNEY, counsel for plaintiff
Patrina Harrison v. City and County of San Francisco
as 23-16194
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PATRINA HARRISON
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Endres v. Moody et al
as 1:2023cv12051
Plaintiff:
Steven P. Endres and Pro se litigant Steven P. Endres
Defendant:
Ashley Moody, Ken Paxton, City and County of San Francisco, California and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv05084
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
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.
