Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2025cv01559
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 Americans with Disabilities
NOCK v. ANSWERNET, INC.
as 2:2025mc00026
Petitioner:
ROBERT NOCK
Respondent:
ANSWERNET, INC. doing business as TPV.COM
Cause Of Action: Motion to Compel
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv04298
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
ANDERSON-CHICO v. CERIDA INVESTMENT CORP. et al
as 2:2022cv02742
Plaintiff:
MARY ANDERSON-CHICO
Defendant:
CERIDA INVESTMENT CORP. and ANSWERNET INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Alexander et al v. Greenwood Hall, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv04540
Plaintiff:
Kandia Smart, Shane Ogden, Takela Davis and others
Defendant:
Anastasia Banks, Michael Poutre, Timothy Boris and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv00667
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv00284
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Matthew Hanson et al v. Answernet, Inc.
as 5:2014cv02443
Defendant:
Answernet, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Matthew Hanson, Matthew Hanson, Tanya McIver and others
Barbara Robertshaw v. Gary Pudles, et al
as 14-2679
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BARBARA ROBERTSHAW
Defendant - Appellee:
BETTY BABJAK
Defendant - Appellant:
ANSWERNET INC and GARY F. PUDLES
Not Party - Appellee:
CERIDA INVESTMENT CORP
Barbara Robertshaw v. Gary Pudles, et al
as 14-2680
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BARBARA ROBERTSHAW
Defendant - Appellee:
GARY F. PUDLES, ANSWERNET INC and BETTY BABJAK
Not Party - Appellant:
CERIDA INVESTMENT CORP
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.
