Cases 41 - 50 of 3,596
Rose v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
as 2:2024cv00473
Petitioner:
William Rose
Respondent:
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Interested Party:
Cellular Touch Wireless, Inc.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02217
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
Lim v. Eckert et al
as 4:2024cv00470
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
Susan Lynn Eckert, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Lim v. Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California et al
as 4:2024cv00469
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01676
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
as 6:2024cv00270
Plaintiff:
Cutting Edge Vision, LLC
Defendant:
T Mobile US, Inc. and T Mobile USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Hall v. Treasurer of the United States, et al.
as 24-3199
Plaintiff:
GWENDOLYN HALL
Defendant:
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLE INC., T-MOBILE US, INC. and others
Hasson et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al
as 1:2024cv01580
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Hasson and Chad Graddy
Defendant:
AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00916
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
Nichols v. AT&T Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00802
Plaintiff:
Timothy Nichols
Defendant:
AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1
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.
