Cases 31 - 40 of 208
Renfro v. Harmon et al
as 4:2019cv04803
Plaintiff:
Levite Renfro
Defendant:
Aramark, District Atty of Court 176 and Judge Nikita V Harmon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tahri v. Aramark Corporation et al
as 4:2019cv04417
Plaintiff:
Abdelaziz Tahri
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation and Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Fields v. State of Mississippi et al
as 1:2019cv00822
Plaintiff:
Brandon Earl Fields
Defendant:
Bryan Matthews, Gulfport Police Dept, State of Mississippi and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Myart, Jr. v. Wolff, et al
as 5:2019cv01286
Defendant:
Bexar County, Nelson W. Wolff, David Smith and others
Plaintiff:
James Myart, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones v. Coopper et al
as 4:2019cv04060
Defendant:
Harris Health System, Aramark, Harris County Jail Mail Room and others
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Aramark Services Inc
as 5:2019cv01114
Plaintiff:
Sandra Johnson
Defendant:
Aramark Services Inc and Aramark Healthcare Support Services L L C
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Marshall County, Mississippi et al v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC et al
as 3:2019cv00190
Plaintiff:
Marshall County, Mississippi, Sheriff Kenny Dickerson and John Does 1-5
Defendant:
Jane/John Does 1-5, Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC and Corporations/Companies 1-5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Taggart v. Gonzales
as 4:2019cv02814
Plaintiff:
Dion Lee Taggart
Defendant:
Ed Gonzales and Aramark Employee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Crawford v. Aramark et al
as 4:2019cv02470
Respondent:
Harris County Sheriff's Office Jail and Aramark
Petitioner:
Owen Ketih Crawford, Sr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. Commissary Aramark et al
as 4:2019cv00456
Defendant:
Commissary Aramark, Dr. FNU Mixon and Officer FNU Cardenas
Plaintiff:
Alex Perry Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
