Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Robert Swift v. , et alIn re: Robert Swift v. , et al
as 23-2887
Petitioner:
In re: ROBERT SWIFT
Respondent:
RAMESH PANDEY and BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
Debtor:
BHUWAN PANDEY
Defendant / Appellee:
XECHEM INDIA PVT LTD
Jose TorresIn re: Jose Torres
as 23-2568
Petitioner:
In re: JOSE TORRES
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
In re: Jose Torres
as 23-2085
Petitioner:
In re: JOSE TORRES
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION v. UNITED STATES et al
as 3:2022cv02399
Plaintiff:
LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION
Defendant:
UNITED STATES, MERICK B GARLAND, CHIEF JUDGE MICHAEL A CHAGARES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Richard Kaul, et al v. Federation of State Medical B, et al
as 21-7043
Defendant / Appellee:
Geico Indemnity, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Robert Garrett and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D. and Arnold Erwin Feldman, M.D.
Louis NeptuneIn re: Louis Neptune
as 21-1535
Respondent:
MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, LINDA LANG INFUSINO, DIANE PINCUS and others
Petitioner:
In re: LOUIS NEPTUNE
Jose TorresIn re: Jose Torres
as 21-1401
Respondent:
BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
In re: JOSE TORRES
Louis NeptuneIn re: Louis Neptune
as 21-1278
Respondent:
MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, LINDA LANG INFUSINO, DIANE PINCUS and others
Petitioner:
In re: LOUIS NEPTUNE
Jose TorresIn re: Jose Torres
as 21-1005
Respondent:
BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
In re: JOSE TORRES
Richard Kaul, et al v. Federation of State Medical B, et al
as 20-7120
Defendant / Appellee:
Geico Indemnity, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Robert Garrett and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D. and Arnold Erwin Feldman, M.D.
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.
