Cases 41 - 50 of 442
Molina Reyes v. Gemstone Supermarkets, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv05513
Plaintiff:
Marvin Alberto Molina Reyes
Defendant:
David Mandell and Gemstone Supermarkets, Inc. doing business as Holiday Farms
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Molina et al v. First Choice PL, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv05349
Plaintiff:
Mario Molina, Luis Alonso Aldana and Walter Alexander Ulloa
Defendant:
First Choice PL, Inc., Veronica Azulai and Ron Maimon Azulai
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Whittingham v. Tress et al
as 1:2023cv06058
Defendant:
Mark Tress, Moishe Tress, 1180 President Funding, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Trevor Whittingham
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05272
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05755
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Davis v. Molina et al
as 1:2023cv04600
Plaintiff:
Clifton Davis
Defendant:
Gustavo Molina and United Natural Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Molina v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2023cv04292
Plaintiff:
Ivonne Molina
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Parada-Molina v. Garland
as 23-6587
Petitioner:
ERLIN SALVADOR PARADA-MOLINA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Taylor v. Molina
as 23-6582
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROY TAYLOR
Defendant / Appellee:
MOLINA, NYCDOC EMPLOYEES, JOHN DOE AUBURN MEDICAL ADM & HEALTH CARE PROVIDER and others
Molina Palacios v. Garland
as 23-6580
Petitioner:
MIGUEL ANGEL MOLINA PALACIOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
