Cases 41 - 50 of 65
CIOCCA v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al
as 2:2016cv04268
Plaintiff:
RACHAEL M. CIOCCA
Defendant:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, LLP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Truth in Lending
DONAHUE et al v. BAYER, CORP. et al
as 2:2016cv03710
Plaintiff:
KRYSTAL DONAHUE , BRIANA DONG , BELINDA DRIVER and others
Defendant:
BAYER, CORP. , BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC , BAYER ESSURE, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
FAULK et al v. RIDDELL, INC. et al
as 2:2016cv00408
Plaintiff:
TREVERANCE FAULK and RACHAEL FAULK
Defendant:
RIDDELL, INC. , ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION and RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BOSEMAN v. UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP et al
as 2:2015cv02332
Plaintiff:
RACHAEL BOSEMAN
Defendant:
UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP and PATRICK REYNOLDS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CHERRY v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC
as 2:2014cv06292
Plaintiff:
RACHAEL CHERRY
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ADVANTAGE POINT, LP v. BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN et al
as 5:2014cv05517
Plaintiff:
ADVANTAGE POINT, LP
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN , KUTZTOWN MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY , PEGGY DEVLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lee v. Colvin
as 1:2014cv01635
Plaintiff:
Rachael Lee
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Nye v. Cumberland County et al
as 1:2014cv00713
Plaintiff:
Justin Richard Nye
Defendant:
Cumberland County, Rachael K. Krupko, Patricia Kramer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00291
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
MCMILLAN et al v. TAYLOR et al
as 2:2013cv00584
Plaintiff:
JAVIER MCMILLAN and ERMA MCMILLAN
Defendant:
CHRISTINA L. TAYLOR, RACHAEL KIRKSEY, STACY GIRARD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
