Cases 1 - 10 of 100
David Willis v. Todd Sponseller
as 26-1103
Plaintiff:
DAVID KEITH WILLIS
Defendant:
JUDGE TODD SPONSELLER, individually and in his official capacity, LAURA WILLIS and FRANKLIN COUNTY PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE
Hines v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
as 25-7936
Petitioner:
Lisa R. Hines, Lisa Dunn and LISA A. HINES
Respondent:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Real Party In Interest:
DAVID KEITH GOTTLIEB, Trustee and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
Keith v. United States of America
as 25-2779
Petitioner:
DAVID KEITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WILLS v. WARDEN
as 2:2025cv00492
Petitioner:
DAVID KEITH WILLS
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Key et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2025cv12706
Defendant:
3M Company, Mine Respirator Company LLC, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and others
Plaintiff:
John W Key, Lawrence J Jungles, Sr, Chasity Justet and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury
Key et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2025cv01420
Defendant:
3M Company, Mine Respirator Company LLC, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and others
Plaintiff:
John W Key, Lawrence J Jungles, Sr, Chasity Justet and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
WILLIS v. SPONSELLER et al
as 1:2025cv00624
Plaintiff:
DAVID KEITH WILLIS
Defendant:
JUDGE TODD SPONSELLER, LAURA WILLIS and FRANKLIN COUNTY PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROBINSON v. OAKS, ESQ. et al
as 1:2025cv13529
Defendant:
DAVID K. OAKS, P.A. and DAVID KEITH OAKS, ESQ.
Plaintiff:
ALBERT M ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Keith v. Romain
as 5:2025cv00758
Plaintiff:
David Keith
Defendant:
Carlos Romain
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.
