Cases 41 - 50 of 3,864
Jubenville v. Genesee County Jail et al
as 2:2024cv10371
Plaintiff:
Todd Jubenville
Defendant:
Genesee County Jail and Robbins
BASKIN-ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC et al v. BLU MOO ICE CREAM INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00293
Plaintiff:
BASKIN-ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC and BR IP HOLDER LLC
Defendant:
BLU MOO ICE CREAM INC. and ROBERT HOLOCHER
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
Wright v. Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00194
Plaintiff:
Matthew Wright
Defendant:
Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph S. Bailes, Mark Chin and others
Rogers v. County of Sacramento, et al.
as 24-738
Plaintiff:
KIM EDWARD ROGERS
Defendant:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, KEATON RILEY, Chief of State to Patrick Kennedy, JIM COOPER, Sacramento Sheriff and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01206
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01173
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
American Express Company v. Oliver
as 24-317
Petitioner:
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
Respondent:
ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE and others
Keo v. Coutts, et al.
as 24-671
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHANHT REATREY KEO
Defendant / Appellee:
MELISSA ROBBINS COUTTS, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Mistry v. Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc. et al
as 3:2024cv00721
Plaintiff:
Sapna Mistry
Defendant:
Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph S. Bailes, Mark Chin and others
Bayse v. Ward et al
as 1:2024cv00016
Plaintiff:
Robbin Amanda Bayse and Robert Bayse
Defendant:
Timothy Ward, Sharon Lewis, Jauel Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
