Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Pajak v. Under Armour Inc et al
as 1:2021mc00027
Plaintiff:
Cynthia D. Pajak
Defendant:
Under Armour Retail, Inc., Brian Boucher and Under Armour, Inc.
Pajak v. Under Armour, Inc. et al
as 1:2021mc00025
Plaintiff:
Cynthia D. Pajak
Defendant:
Under Armour, Inc., Brian Boucher and Under Armour Retail, Inc.
Petitioner:
Nicole Finck
Pajak v. Under Armour Inc et al
as 0:2021mc00037
Defendant:
Brian Boucher, Under Armour Inc, Under Armour Retail Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Cynthia Pajak and Cynthia D. Pajak
Pajak v. Under Armour, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv01132
Defendant:
Under Armour Retail, Inc., Brian Boucher and Under Armour, Inc.
Petitioner:
Nicole Finck
Plaintiff:
Cynthia Pajak
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00160
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Boucher v. Connecticut et al
as 3:2011cv01828
Plaintiff:
Brian Boucher
Defendant:
State of Connecticut and USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Boucher v. State of Connecticut et al
as 1:2011cv06930
Plaintiff:
Brian Boucher
Defendant:
State of Connecticut and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Boucher v. Connecticut et al
as 3:2011cv01060
Plaintiff:
Brian Boucher
Defendant:
State of Connecticut and USA
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Boucher v. New Haven et al
as 3:2011cv00925
Plaintiff:
Brian Boucher
Defendant:
Town of New Haven, State of Connecticut and USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jones v. UMASS Correctional Health, et al
as 09-2266
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTONIO JONES
Defendant:
KATHLEEN M. DENNEHY, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction, MICHAEL T. MALONEY, former Superintendent, Cedar Junction MCI at Walpole, ANTHONY SILVA, Former Director of Security and others
Defendant - Appellee:
UMASS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES and JEFFREY SHOREY, in his individual and offical capacities
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.
