Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Mitchell et al v. Ditech Financial LLC et al
as 1:2019cv00193
Plaintiff:
Curtis L. Mitchell, Brenita Mitchell and Brenita Louise Mitchell
Defendant:
Ditech Financial LLC and Connie Cobb
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MITCHELL v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al
as 2:2018cv06182
Plaintiff:
CURTIS M. MITCHELL
Defendant:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ASTRAZENECA LP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mitchell v. Lucent Technologies Inc. Pension Plan et al
as 1:2017cv08097
Plaintiff:
Curtis A. Mitchell
Defendant:
Lucent Technologies Inc. Pension Plan , Lisa P. Ramsthaler , Alacatel-Lucent USA, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Mitchell et al v. A 7 Travel Solutions Inc et al
as 6:2017cv00896
Plaintiff:
Curtis G Mitchell, Sr and Curtis G Mitchell, Jr
Defendant:
A 7 Travel Solutions Inc , Vasily Mospanyuk and Northland Insurance Co
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mitchell v. Blackmon
as 3:2016cv00556
Plaintiff:
Curtis Eugene Mitchell
Defendant:
B. E. Blackmon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
In re: Curtis Mitchell
as 16-14313
Petitioner:
In re: CURTIS EUGENE MITCHELL
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mitchell v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 3:2013cv00189
Plaintiff:
Curtis W. Mitchell
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy Products, Inc. , DePuy International Limited and others
Pecial_master:
Special Master
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
USA v. Curtis Mitchell
as 12-13457
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CURTIS EUGENE MITCHELL
Mitchell v. Reynolds
as 0:2012cv01501
Petitioner:
Curtis Jerome Mitchell
Respondent:
Cecelia Reynolds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mitchell v. Rock Hill City Police Dept et al
as 0:2012cv00346
Plaintiff:
Curtis Jerome Mitchell
Defendant:
Marc Kitts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
