Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Dyson Technology Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2022cv02524
Plaintiff:
Dyson Technology Limited
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Shenzhen Meiladi Electronic Co., Changsha Fengmeichang Information Technology Co. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Cruz et al v. West New Malaysia Restaurant Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv07994
Defendant:
Andy K Chong, West New Malaysia Restaurant Inc. and Tatali Doe
Plaintiff:
Netzahi Cruz
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Andy K Onwuka v. Jason Bogosian et al
as 8:2018cv00831
Defendant:
Jason Bogosian, Kevin Dunn and James Miller
Plaintiff:
Andy K Onwuka
v. Zuttah et al
as 3:2016cv01384
Plaintiff:
Andy K. Zuttah
Defendant:
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Dogs-by-Andy K-9 Services, LLC v. The Sherwin-Williams Company
as 5:2015cv00073
Plaintiff:
Dogs-by-Andy K-9 Services, LLC
Defendant:
The Sherwin-Williams Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Zuttah v. Weidler
as 8:2013cv01698
Plaintiff:
Andy K. Zuttah
Defendant:
Ryan Weidler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Keel et al v. Warren Trucking Company Inc et al
as 4:2012cv02132
Plaintiff:
Andy K Keel, Sr and Eva McMillan
Defendant:
Warren Trucking Company Inc and Timothy Ardell Carter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
King v. Lienemann et al
as 3:2011cv00130
Plaintiff:
Bobby King
Defendant:
C/O Lienemann, Andy K Ott, Michael P Randle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Ott
as 1:2008cv07066
Petitioner:
Parnell Jones
Respondent:
Andy K. Ott
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Jones v. Ott et al
as 1:2007cv02179
Petitioner:
Parnell Jones
Respondent:
Andy K. Ott and Attorney General Of The State Of Illinois
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
