Cases 1 - 10 of 11
United States v. Daniel Bonilla
as 22-3006
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Daniel Bonilla
BONILLA v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv18019
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DANIEL BONILLA
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
BONILLA v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv85403
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
DANIEL BONILLA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bonilla Galindo et al v. E & E Food Corp. et al
as 1:2019cv08459
Defendant:
Andy Koksal, Niko Doe, Erol Alkan and others
Plaintiff:
Jose Vasquez Geronimo, Daniel Bonilla Galindo and Jose Juan Maya Alvarez
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Mendoza et al v. Tribeca Restaurant LLC et al
as 1:2017cv08337
Plaintiff:
Isidro Mendoza , Joel Felix Nicolas , Joel Marquez Flores and others
Defendant:
Tribeca Restaurant LLC, Rakesh Aggarwal, Inder Singh and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
USA v. Daniel Bonilla-Padilla
as 16-20816
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DANIEL BONILLA-PADILLA, also known as Alex Daniel Bonilla, also known as Daniel Alex Bonilla, also known as Francisco Alvarez Zepeda
Bonilla v. CACH, LLC
as 1:2014cv00287
Plaintiff:
Daniel Bonilla
Defendant:
CACH, LLC and Mandarich Law Group, LLP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Soto v. City of New York et al
as 1:2012cv04241
Defendant:
Detective Daniel Bonilla, City of New York, County of Kings and others
Plaintiff:
Rafael Soto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bonilla v. Smith
as 1:2012cv00421
Plaintiff:
Daniel Bonilla
Defendant:
H. Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ramos v. City of New York et al
as 1:2010cv05483
Defendant:
NYC Police Detective Daniel Bonilla, City of New York and NYC Police Officer John Doe 1-4
Plaintiff:
Sonia Ramos
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
