Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Montgomery v. iRobot Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv08495
Plaintiff:
Sean Montgomery
Defendant:
iRobot Corporation, Colin Angle, Mohamad Ali and others
Moore v. iRobot Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv08445
Plaintiff:
Jon Moore
Defendant:
iRobot Corporation, Colin Angle, Mohamad Ali and others
Reid v. iRobot Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv07498
Plaintiff:
Joseph Reid
Defendant:
iRobot Corporation, Colin M. Angle, Mohamad Ali and others
Hard Chrome Solutions LLC et v. Machinery Equip. Rebuilders
as 1:2022cv03439
Plaintiff:
HARD CHROME SOLUTIONS LLC,, Frank Nicholas, Tina Leo and others
Defendant:
A&J Machine Builders, Steve Miller, Paul Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Katz et al v. Ali et al
as 1:2019cv11692
Defendant:
Mohamad Ali, Ruey-Bin Kao, Deborah Ellinger and others
Nominal Defendant:
iRobot Corporation
Plaintiff:
David Katz and Thomas Wightman
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Miller
as 1:2015cv04585
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Andrew Miller
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77
Paulstich v. Merrick Post Office et al
as 2:2014cv02169
Defendant:
Mary Cave, Diane Baquet, Robert Baquet and others
Plaintiff:
Wendy K. Paulstich
Cause Of Action: 39 U.S.C. § 409 Postal Service
Sky Medical Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Services, Inc. et al
as 2:2012cv06383
Counter Claimant:
Benjamin Osiashvili, Patient Focus Medical Examinations, PC and Nationwide Management Inc.
Defendant:
Mikael Oshiashvili, Aleksey Vayner, Benjamin Osi and others
Interested Party:
Government Employees Insurance Company
Not Classified By Court:
BDB Management and TCMR Management, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Sky Medical Supply Inc.
Special Master:
Clifford S. Robert
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2010cv01628
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
