Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Nayak v. Kimco Realty Corporation et al
as 1:2021cv05501
Defendant:
Richard B. Saltzman, Milton Cooper, Henry Moniz and others
Plaintiff:
Mohan Nayak
Fields v. Kimco Realty Corporation et al
as 1:2021cv03198
Plaintiff:
Tammy Fields
Defendant:
Richard B. Saltzman, Philip E. Coviello Jr., Milton Cooper and others
AZUBUKO v. BURDMAN et al
as 1:2019cv02550
Defendant:
MASSACHUSETTS' SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT, ALL JURORS TO THE CASE, PAULA M. CAREY and others
Plaintiff:
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Flynn et al
as 3:2018cv00005
Plaintiff:
USA
Defendant:
Brandon L. Flynn and Kasey C. Flynn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Rory Flynn v. SEC
as 16-2122
Petitioner:
RORY C. FLYNN
Respondent:
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Tutoring Club, LLC v. Flynn
as 2:2016cv00767
Defendant:
Michael C Flynn
Plaintiff:
Tutoring Club, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
In re: Valette Clark, et al
as 16-1554
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: VALETTE J. CLARK, MICHAEL CLARK, PHILLIP CLARK and others
Defendant - Respondent:
KEVIN D. CLARK, M.D., SHARON E. CLARK, OPHTHLMOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF OSBORNE INC and others
Nominal Respondent:
DAVID S. CERCONE
In re: Valette Clark, et al, et al
as 15-3966
Petitioner:
In re: VALETTE J. CLARK, MICHAEL CLARK, PHILLIP CLARK and others
Respondent:
KEVIN D. CLARK, M.D., SHARON E. CLARK, OPHTHLMOLOGY ASSOCIATES OSBORNE INC and others
Nominal Respondent:
DAVID S. CERCONE
CLARK et al v. CLARK et al
as 2:2015cv01328
Plaintiff:
VALETTE J. CLARK, MICHAEL CLARK, PHILLIP CLARK and others
Defendant:
KEVIN D. CLARK, SHARON E. CLARK, OPHTHLMOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF OSBORNE, INC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Million v. Hedgpeth et al
as 4:2014cv04439
Plaintiff:
Charlie Lee Million
Defendant:
Anthony Hedgpeth, Helen Thornton, C. Flynn and others
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.
