Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv02718
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Klahn v. Meyerson
as 2:2016cv00720
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.
Defendant:
Richard Meyerson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Klahn v. Kostopoulos et al
as 2:2016cv00719
Defendant:
Robert Chang and Arete Rita Kostopoulos
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice
Klahn v. Wasco State Prison et al
as 1:2016cv00342
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.
Defendant:
Wasco State Prison, John N. Katavich, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Klahn v. Dublin Police Department et al
as 3:2016cv00833
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.
Defendant:
Dublin Police Department, Alameda County Sheriff's Dept., Michael J. Popins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
QFA v. Klahn, et al
as 13-1481
Plaintiff - Appellee:
QFA ROYALTIES, LLC
Defendant - Appellant:
DANIEL P. KLAHN, SR.
Defendant:
WG COMPANIES, LLC., a dissolved California Limited Liability Company
Daniel Klahn, Sr., et al v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
as 13-36038
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANIEL P. KLAHN, Sr. and LAURIE KLAHN
Defendant - Appellee:
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.
QFA Royalties, LLC v. WG Companies, LLC et al
as 1:2013cv02853
Plaintiff:
QFA Royalties, LLC
Defendant:
WG Companies, LLC and Daniel P. Klahn Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Klahn v. Valley Federal Credit Union of Montana
as 1:2013cv00133
Defendant:
Valley Federal Credit Union of Montana
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Klahn v. Quizmark, LLC
as 3:2013cv01977
Plaintiff:
Daniel P. Klahn, Sr.
Defendant:
Quizmark, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
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.
