Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv05725
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Saplan v. McDonald, et al.
as 26-5999
Plaintiff:
REYNALDO SAPLAN
Defendant:
H. RICHARD MCDONALD, JUDY CHEN and CHARLES NG
Chen v. Zadno et al
as 5:2026cv10492
Plaintiff:
Stanford Chen
Defendant:
Reza Zadno, Larry L Wood, Kevin Waters and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Chen v. Blanche
as 26-2574
Petitioner:
JIN SEN CHEN
Respondent:
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv07480
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Teng et al v. Hanaya Omakase Inc. et al
as 1:2026cv08004
Plaintiff:
Yoke Hon Teng
Defendant:
Hanaya Omakase Inc. d/b/a Hanaya Omakase, 332 Sushi Kai LLC d/b/a Sushi Kai East Village, 11 Sushi Kai Inc. d/b/a Sushi Kai West Village and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
(PC)Robinson v. Chen
as 2:2026cv03223
Plaintiff:
Titus Ameer Robinson
Defendant:
Chen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Yangzhou Chemical Imp and Exp et al v. DNG Chemicals Inc. et al
as 3:2026cv01900
Defendant:
Mark Chen, DNG Chemicals Inc., Wei Chen and others
Plaintiff:
Yanzhou Chemical Imp and Exp and USA Debt Recovery Solutions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv05669
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Chen v. Mullin et al
as 2:2026cv03295
Petitioner:
Changjun Chen
Respondent:
MarkWayne Mullin, Bruce Scott, Todd Blanche and others
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Det
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.
