Cases 21 - 30 of 2,368
Taylor v. Axonics, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00298
Plaintiff:
Steve Taylor
Defendant:
Axonics, Inc., Michael H. Carrel, Raymond W. Cohen and others
Smith v. Axonics, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00284
Plaintiff:
James Smith
Defendant:
Axonics, Inc., Michael H. Carrel, Raymond W. Cohen and others
Aisha Bradley
as 24-1355
Petitioner:
In re: AISHA ASHA BRADLEY
Respondent:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, SUMMIT PARK EAST GP, UNIVERSITY CITY HOUSING CO and others
Aisha Bradley
as 24-1356
Petitioner:
In re: AISHA ASHA BRADLEY
Respondent:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, SUMMIT PARK EAST GP, UNIVERSITY CITY HOUSING CO and others
THEODORE v. PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
as 2:2024mc00011
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM C. THEODORE
Defendant:
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL OTWORTH, MICHAEL E. DEE and others
Respondent:
HINDENBURG RESEARCH, LLC
Darrell Williams v. Promedica Health Systems Inc
as 24-1369
Plaintiff:
DARRELL E. WILLIAMS, Personal Representative of the Estate of MONEENA WILLIAMS, Deceased
Defendant:
PROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC, trading and doing business as PROMEDICA SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION (GREENTREE) trading and doing business as MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES- GREENTREE
Tang et al v. CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd. et al
as 1:2024cv00198
Plaintiff:
JOHN YONG TANG and Faris Al Kooheji
Defendant:
CITIC CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD., CITIC Limited, CITIC Capital Partners LLC and others
Counter Defendant:
GNC Holdings, LLC
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
ARDAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC et al v. NOTARYCAM, INC. et al
as 2:2024cv00172
Plaintiff:
ARDAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC, INKED HOLDINGS, LLC, MORTGAGE CONNECT, L.P. and others
Defendant:
NOTARYCAM, INC. and HYE-JIN E. PORUPSKY
CUKER et al v. BEREZOFSKY
as 2:2024cv00471
Petitioner:
MARK R. CUKER and GERALD J. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
ESTHER E. BEREZOFSKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
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.
