Cases 51 - 60 of 476
Clervrain et al v. Brimmer et al
as 1:2022cv00006
Plaintiff:
Manetiony Clervrain, Fabrice Thomas, Wislene Casy and others
Defendant:
Philip A. Brimmer, David DLG Atalig, Tom Kucharski and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
In re: Lazaro Candelaria
as 22-10917
Petitioner:
In re: LAZARO CANDELARIA
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Bonilla-Hernandez v. Garland
as 22-6056
Petitioner:
ADELA CANDELARIA BONILLA-HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Pablo Candelaria
as 22-50015
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
PABLO JAGBHEJ CANDELARIA, AKA Jose Alvarez, AKA Pablo Candaleria, AKA Pablo J. Candelaria
Jose Diaz et al v. Pauline Macareno et al
as 2:2021cv09678
Plaintiff:
Jose Diaz, Jose Alberto Diaz, Jr. and Jose Diaz, Sr
Defendant:
Pauline Macareno, Margie Candelaria, Erik Candelaria and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
Candelaria v. Conopco, Inc.
as 1:2021cv06760
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Candelaria
Defendant:
Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever Home & Personal Care USA and Conopco, Inc. doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00237
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Candelaria v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2021cv01230
Plaintiff:
Lillian Ivette Candelaria
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Candelaria Rafael-Bautista, et al v. Merrick Garland
as 21-3883
Petitioner:
CANDELARIA RAFAEL-BAUTISTA and ERIKA ANAHI TERCERO-RAFAEL
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Candelaria v. Vroom Automotive, LLC
as 1:2021cv00957
Plaintiff:
Adam Candelaria
Defendant:
Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom Automotive, LLC doing business as Vroom.com
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
