Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv03453
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv03452
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv05736
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rodriguez v. The City Of New York , et al
as 1:2016cv00324
Plaintiff:
David Rodriguez
Defendant:
The City Of New York , , The New York City Police Department, Danielle Biagini and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dorzin v. Rodriguez et al
as 1:2015cv02337
Defendant:
City of New York, P.O. John Doe #1, P.O. John Doe #2 and others
Plaintiff:
Mr. Miller Dorzin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Martinez et al v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2014cv00094
Plaintiff:
Ashley Martinez , David Rodriguez and Tasha Rodriguez
Defendant:
The City of New York, Carlos Lozado, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rodriguez et al v. City of New York et al
as 1:2013cv01372
Defendant:
City of New York, John Does #1-4 and Police Officer Wagner
Plaintiff:
Scharlene Flynn-Rodriguez, David Rodriguez and Jerome J. Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bravo v. City Of New York et al
as 1:2010cv03862
Plaintiff:
Walter Bravo
Defendant:
City Of New York, Giovanni Fini, John and Jane Doe 1 through 10 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv03754
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Doe v. Rodriguez
as 7:2008cv09144
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
David Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
