Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01027
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2018cv02747
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv11411
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOLMES et al v. BITECH INC.
as 1:2016cv01171
Defendant:
BITECH INC.
Plaintiff:
EDGAR HOLMES, III and SHAVON L HOLMES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Thornton et al v. Cook Incorporated et al
as 2:2014cv25192
Plaintiff:
Constance E. Thornton and David G. Thornton
Defendant:
Cook Incorporated, Cook Bitech, Inc. and Cook Medical, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Atencio v. Bitech, Inc et al
as 1:2012cv00057
Plaintiff:
Alexi Atencio
Defendant:
Bitech, Inc , Martec Industrial, Inc and Longda Technologies, LTD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lamb v. Bitech, Inc
as 3:2011cv05583
Plaintiff:
Jordan Lamb
Defendant:
Bitech, Inc a Delaware corporation doing business as Performance Bicycle Shop
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Mita v. Fuji Bicycles/Ideal Bicycle Corporation, LTD et al
as 1:2011cv01212
Plaintiff:
Roy Mita
Defendant:
Quest Composite Technology Corporation, Advanced Sports, Inc. , Bitech, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Gauss-Wozny v. Performance Direct, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv02482
Plaintiff:
Peggy Gauss-Wozny
Defendant:
Performance Direct, Inc. , Bitech, Inc. , Performance, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Walter Roger Johnson v. Bitech, Inc.
as 2:2009cv07278
Plaintiff:
Walter Roger Johnson
Defendant:
Bitech, Inc., Bitech, Inc., Bitech, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Labor/Mgmnt. Relations
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.
