Cases 21 - 30 of 1,201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-10567
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Jozadaque Rodrigues da Silva, et al v. U.S. Attorney General
as 24-10517
Petitioner:
JOZADAQUE RODRIGUES DA SILVA, SIMONE LOPES RODRIGUES DA SILVA, JULIA RHAYALLA LOPES RODRIGUES DA SILVA and others
Respondent:
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rodrigues v. Outmatch, Inc. et al
as 5:2024cv06025
Plaintiff:
Mark Rodrigues
Defendant:
Outmatch, Inc. and Outmatch Holdings, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Hampton v. O'Malley
as 2:2024cv00117
Plaintiff:
Rodrigues C. Hampton
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Interested Party:
SSA (Social Security Administration)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Rodrigues v. The Providence Center, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00070
Plaintiff:
Antonia Rodrigues
Defendant:
The Providence Center, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Gomes De Almeida, et al. v. Garland
as 24-731
Petitioner:
GILLIARD GOMES DE ALMEIDA, ADENISA RODRIGUES SABARA DOS SANTOS and MAIANY GIULLY RODRIGUES DE ALMEIDA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rodriguez Then v. US
as 24-1120
Petitioner:
LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUE THEN and LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ THEN
Respondent:
UNITED STATES
Hill v. Wise, et al.
as 24-605
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT J HILL
Defendant / Appellee:
TODD WISE, Unit Sgt., 2nd-shift, JON COERS, Classification Counselor 1, AARON KERSHAW, Unit Sgt., 3rd-shift and others
Rodriguez-Granados, et al. v. Garland
as 24-629
Petitioner:
REINA RODRIGUEZ-GRANADOS, FRANCISCO MATEO CORTEZ-RODRIGUES and KEYSEL ARIANNA CORTEZ-GRANADOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00110
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
