Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Thompson v. Kijakazi
as 6:2023cv00001
Plaintiff:
Clinton Thompson
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Not Classified By Court:
Social Security Administration and United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Pang et al v. J.M. Hollister, LLC et al
as 6:2015cv06604
Plaintiff:
Cindy Pang , Clinton Thompson and Agnieszka Pustelnik
Defendant:
J.M. Hollister LLC and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Schmidt et al v. Syngenta Corporation et al
as 2:2015cv09062
Plaintiff:
Wendel Adolph Schmidt , Wendel Schmidt Farms , Daniel V. Arnold and others
Defendant:
Syngenta Corporation , Syngenta Seeds, Inc. , Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Schmidt et al v. Syngenta Corporation et al
as 0:2015cv02179
Plaintiff:
Wendel Adolph Schmidt , Wendel Schmidt Farms , Daniel V. Arnold and others
Defendant:
Syngenta Corporation , Syngenta Seeds, Inc. , Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Pang et al v. J.M. Hollister, LLC et al
as 1:2015cv01148
Defendant:
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and J.M. Hollister, LLC
Plaintiff:
Cindy Pang, Agnieszka Pustelnik and Clinton Thompson
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Thompson v. USA
as 7:2014cv07335
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Randall Clinton Thompson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Thompson v. Dyncorp International LLC
as 5:2013cv00465
Plaintiff:
Clinton Thompson
Defendant:
Dyncorp International LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
USA v. Randall Thompson
as 11-5453
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
RANDALL CLINTON THOMPSON
USA v. Randall Thompson
as 09-5181
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
RANDALL CLINTON THOMPSON
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.
