Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Azita Rahimi v. Cigna Group Insurance et al
as 2:2019cv02661
Defendant: DOES 1 through 10, Life Insurance Company of North America, Cigna Group Insurance and others
Plaintiff: Azita Rahimi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Type: Contract Insurance
Mei Ling v. City of Los Angeles, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 12-57263
Plaintiff - Appellant: MEI LING
Defendant - Appellee: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, REDROCK NOHO RESIDENTIAL, LLC and others
Independent Living Center of Southern California et al v. City of Los Angeles California et al
as 8:2012cv00062
Defendant: 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, Adams 935 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP and others
Plaintiff: Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Independent Living Center of Southern California
Independent Living Center of Southern California et al v. City of Los Angeles California et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2012cv00551
Plaintiff: Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free
Defendant: City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP and others
Cross Defendant: Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc. and OL Hope, LP
Not Classified By Court: Bill Lann Lee and Timothy Fox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Mei Ling v. City of Los Angeles California et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2011cv07774
Defendant: Alliance Residential LLC, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles and others
Plaintiff: Mei Ling
Paramount Contractors & Develo, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 11-56536
Plaintiff - Appellant: PARAMOUNT CONTRACTORS AND DEVELOPERS, INC., a California corporation, SUNSET BLVD. PROPERTIES, LP, a California Limited Partnership, BRADLEY FOLB, an individual and others
Defendant - Appellee: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California municipal corporation and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
-PLA Paramount Contractors and Developers, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2008cv05653
Defendant: City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, DOES and others
Plaintiff: Bradley Folb, Patricia High, Paramount Contractors and Developers, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
-JCG Regency Outdoor Advt v. Los Angeles City of, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:1999cv10456
Defendant: City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Doe and others
Unknown: Dov S Lesel, Paul Etan Fisher, Madison S Spach, Jr and others
Plaintiff: Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Roosevelt Hotel, LLC et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
as 2:2009cv03068
Plaintiff: Roosevelt Hotel, LLC, Roosevelt Hotel, LLC, In Plain Sight Media, Inc. and others
Defendant: City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles and others
Counter Claimant: City of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles
Counter Defendant: Roosevelt Hotel, LLC, In Plain Sight Media, Inc. and Does 1 through 10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Regency Outdoor Advertising, I v. City of Los Angeles California, et al
as 08-56414
Plaintiff - Appellant: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation
Defendant - Appellee: CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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.


Why Is My Information Online?