Cases 41 - 50 of 29,683
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 3:2024cv05375
Plaintiff:
Jeanne Suchodolski
Defendant:
Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv02942
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc v. Valencia et al
as 6:2024cv00549
Plaintiff:
Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc
Defendant:
Juan Carlos Valencia and Melbourne Airport Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
United States of America v. Wilson
as 2:2024mc50463
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Carlo Wilson
Petitioner:
Attorney Grievance Administrator and Attorney Grievance Commission
Servicios Latinos, Inc. v. Amado Gomez et al
as 2:2024cv00182
Plaintiff:
Servicios Latinos, Inc.
Defendant:
Luis G. Amado Gomez, Enith Pertuz Fontalvo, Carlos Sanchez and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1253
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Valencia, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3052
Petitioner:
CARLOS VALENCIA, KATHERINE RIOS, MAROLYN PORTOCARRERO and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Brito v. CJR Construction Group, LLC et al
as 4:2024cv00213
Plaintiff:
Gildel Noel Ruiz Brito, Angel Jose Molleja Gomez, Joel Abimelec Diaz Rodriquez and others
Defendant:
CJR Construction Group, LLC, Centric Construction Group, LLC, Centric Projects, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Law v. Chu et al
as 3:2024cv02870
Plaintiff:
Carlos Gilbert Law
Defendant:
Neil Chu, R. Muniz and Elizabeth Kita
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ham-Pena v. Garland
as 24-1287
Petitioner:
CARLOS ALBERTO HAM-PENA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
