Cases 1 - 10 of 10
SAKHI et al v. Schofer et al
as 1:2024cv01376
Plaintiff:
SARAH OBIDULAH SAKHI and HAMED AREFI
Defendant:
DEPUTY CHIEF Andrew Schofer, SECRETARY ANTONY J BLINKEN, ASST. SECRETARY RENA BITTER and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act - Right of Review
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE
as 0:2024cv60172
Plaintiff:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
Defendant:
Consular Officer JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 0101 Copyright Infringement
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE
as 2:2024cv14026
Plaintiff:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
Defendant:
Consular Officer JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 0101 Copyright Infringement
Turner et al v. Blinken et al
as 1:2024cv00318
Plaintiff:
maxine turner and VICTOR JEAN MARIE QUENTIN
Defendant:
ANTONY J BLINKEN, Asst. Secretary Rena Bitter, deputy chief david r mccawley and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act - Right of Review
PATEL v. BLINKEN et al
as 1:2024cv00277
Plaintiff:
YOGESHKUMAR BALDEVBHAI PATEL
Defendant:
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, RENA BITTER, MIKE HANKEY and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01178
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00274
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv22117
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv20511
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv24133
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329
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.
