Cases 41 - 50 of 118
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv09664
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188
Lunnon v. United States
as 21-2140
Counter Defendant:
MICHAEL E. LUNNON
Counter Claimant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
THE UPS STORE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv09144
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Jeremiah Balik v. City of Las Vegas, et al
as 21-16889
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL and others
Balik v. City of Las Vegas et al
as 2:2021cv01701
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah William Balik
Defendant:
City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, City of Pismo Beach, CA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
as 1:2021cv04828
Plaintiff:
Christian Dior Couture, S.A.
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", Yiwu Aidaila Jewelry Factory, Quanzhou This Week Trading Co., and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
TRIPICCHIO v. THE UPS STORE, INC. et al
as 3:2021cv14512
Plaintiff:
VINCENT TRIPICCHIO
Defendant:
THE UPS STORE, INC. and JB & A ENTERPRISES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
The UPS Store, Inc., et al v. Reba Shavers
as 21-8024
Petitioner:
UPS STORE and GENERATION I. LLC
Respondent:
REBA SHAVERS
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv02766
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
WATTS et al v. WATTS et al
as 1:2021cv01595
Defendant:
DANIEL SHUE, CHRISTOPHER BARRICK, KRISTOPHER KOELEMAY and others
Plaintiff:
LINDSAY LOPEZ and EDWARD ALLAN WATTS
Debtor In Possession:
RAGER H. MOORE, II
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
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.
