Cases 51 - 60 of 65
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Jose Alfredo Santana et al
as 2:2011cv09295
Defendant:
Does and Jose Alfredo Santana
Plaintiff:
Federal National Mortgage Association
Jose Fuentes-Santana v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 11-72593
Petitioner:
JOSE FUENTES-SANTANA
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Chang et al v. LECG Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees et al
as 3:2011cv02619
Plaintiff:
Howard Chang , David Evans , Michael Flynn and others
Defendant:
LECG Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees, LECG Deferred Compensation Plan for Independent Contractors, LECG Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees Plan Committee and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
LECG CORPORATION et al v. ABDALA et al
as 2:2011cv03247
Plaintiff:
LECG CORPORATION , LECG, LLC and LECG CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN COMMITTEE
Defendant:
MANUEL ABDALA, HOWARD H. CHANG , JACK DEWITT and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Kamal Patel v. Jose Santana, et al
as 11-10393
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KAMAL PATEL
Defendant - Appellee:
JOSE NUNEZ SANTANA, Regional Designator, JASON A SICKLER, Regional Counsel and BUREAU OF PRISONS
USA v. Jose Martinez-Santana
as 11-1213
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOSE MARTINEZ-SANTANA, also known as JOSE RODRIGUEZ
Santana Jr. v. A Great Fence, LLC et al
as 2:2011cv14019
Plaintiff:
Jose M. Santana Jr.
Defendant:
A Great Fence, LLC and Darrick R. Bailey
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Flores v. Santana
as 5:2010cv00464
Plaintiff:
Ramon Flores
Defendant:
Jose A. Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Martinez v. Santana
as 5:2010cv00465
Plaintiff:
Ramon Martinez
Defendant:
Jose A. Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Medina v. Santana
as 5:2010cv00458
Plaintiff:
Magadaleno Medina
Defendant:
Jose A. Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
