Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Archuleta v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
as 1:2023cv02570
Plaintiff:
natalie archuleta
Defendant:
AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Bowling v. DaVita, Inc.
as 1:2023cv01035
Plaintiff:
James Bowling
Defendant:
DaVita, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Paquet v. Bowling et al
as 1:2023cv00865
Plaintiff:
Abraham Philip Paquet
Defendant:
Douglas County Colorado Sheriff, George H. Brauchler, Lawerence Raymond Bowling and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gangemi v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
as 1:2022cv03155
Plaintiff:
PAUL GANGEMI
Defendant:
AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. doing business as BOWLERO CHERRY CREEK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02746
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12181 American With Disabilities Act (ADA)
McDonald v. Detention Center Jefferson County et al
as 1:2022cv02498
Plaintiff:
Nicholas John McDonald
Defendant:
Detention Center Jefferson County, Medical Within Facility, Aramark and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bowling v. DaVita, Inc.
as 1:2021cv03033
Plaintiff:
James Bowling
Defendant:
DaVita, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Bowles v. Winden et al
as 1:2021cv01718
Defendant:
Meek, Edwards and Matt Winden
Plaintiff:
Kenneth L. Bowles
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bowles v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
as 1:2021cv00554
Defendant:
Safeco Insurance Company of America
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bowles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bowles v. Polis et al
as 1:2020cv03816
Defendant:
Jared Polis, Dean Williams and Winden Warden
Plaintiff:
Kenneth L. Bowles
Interested Party:
CASE MANAGER/INMATE COORDINATOR OF: Kenneth L. Bowles
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.
