Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00688
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
DOE v. WREN
as 1:2023cv00266
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE and CARLTON HUFFMAN
Defendant:
CAROLINE WREN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
HAWKINS v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. et al
as 1:2022cv03859
Special Master:
SPECIAL MASTER
Plaintiff:
CARLTON HAWKINS and MICHELLE A HAWKINS
Defendant:
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., DEPUY INC, DEPUY INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv03753
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv03209
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02092
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
BARTH v. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2022cv00955
Plaintiff:
JOHN S. BARTH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUR. OF INVESTIGATION, HOMELAND SEC. INVESTIGATIONS. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
TRUDEL v. DILMORE et al
as 1:2021cv03162
Defendant:
HUGH DAVID O'DONNELL, WYNN ANDREW HARDING, PHYLLIS ARMATROUT WONG and others
Plaintiff:
MARY TRUDEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GREEN v. SMITH et al
as 1:2021cv02377
Plaintiff:
Christopher Green
Defendant:
Carlton Smith and District of Columbia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv02207
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
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.
