Cases 1 - 10 of 70
(PC) DePonte v. Delgado et al
as 2:2026cv01203
Plaintiff:
David Arthur DePonte
Defendant:
Allen J. Delgado and Howard E. Moseley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kang v. QUICK DIGIT SOLUTIONS LLC et al
as 3:2026cv00157
Plaintiff:
Julia Kang
Defendant:
QUICK DIGIT SOLUTIONS LLC and David Arthur Aaron
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Trademark Infringement
Kang v. Aaron et al
as 3:2026cv00158
Plaintiff:
Julia Kang
Defendant:
David Arthur Aaron and QUICK DIGIT SOLUTIONS LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Knag v. QUICK DIGIT SOLUTIONS LLC et al
as 3:2026cv00155
Plaintiff:
Julia Knag
Defendant:
QUICK DIGIT SOLUTIONS LLC and David Arthur Aaron
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Trademark Infringement
Hamilton Jr. v. Leon et al
as 2:2025cv00329
Defendant:
Sue Leon, Josh Landsuerk and Tim Taylor
Plaintiff:
David Arthur Hamilton, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Mapes v. Indiana State of et al
as 2:2025cv00378
Plaintiff:
Eric J Mapes
Defendant:
Indiana State of, Tony Liggett, Brent Myers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
(PC) DePonte v. Shepard, et al
as 2:2025cv01515
Plaintiff:
David Arthur DePonte
Defendant:
M. Shepard, Vega, T. Marinda and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) DePonte v. Stohl, et al
as 2:2025cv01516
Plaintiff:
David Arthur DePonte
Defendant:
Stohl, J. Tuman, B. Garza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) DePonte v. Stohl, et al
as 1:2025cv00674
Plaintiff:
David Arthur DePonte
Defendant:
Stohl, J. Tuman, B. Garza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Dauzat
as 3:2025cv00620
Plaintiff:
David Arthur Smith
Defendant:
Michele Dauzat
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
