Civil Rights Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Benitez Caceres et al v. Amos Financial, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv00133
Plaintiff: Mirca Benitez Caceres, Guillermo Caceres, Juan C. Caceres and others
Defendant: Amos Financial, LLC, Department of Planning and Development and National Grid
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
King Alvarez v. HUD, et al
as 22-3282
Plaintiff / Appellant: KING ANTHONY ALVAREZ
Defendant / Appellee: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a HUD, MARCIA FUDGE, Secretary of HUD, NADAB BYNUM, Director of Community Planning and Development at HUD Philadelphia Regional Office and others
Norton v. Town of Islip
as 22-2797
Plaintiff / Appellant: Howard J. Norton
Defendant: Assistant Town Attor Erin A. Sidaras, Esq Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Richard Hoffman, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Town Attorney for the Town of Islip and others
Defendant / Appellee: Town of Islip, County of Suffolk, Joanne Huml, individually and in her official capacity as a Town of Islip Assistant Town Attorney and Director of the Division of Law Enforcement of the Town of Islip Office of the Town Attorney and others
Sing Ng v. Bing Kung BL Association, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 18-35746
Plaintiff - Appellant: SING CHO NG
Defendant: BING KUNG BL ASSOCIATION, its directors, managers and officials in their official and individual capacities, DBA Bing Kung Bo Leung Inc (UBI 601-677-293), DBA Bing Kung Bo Leung Society (under UBI 601-858-308), JIM METZ, City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development official in his official and individual capacity, JANET HELSON, King County Superior Court official in their official and individual capacities and others
Ng v. Bing Kung Association et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2017cv01515
Plaintiff: Sing Cho Ng
Defendant: Bing Kung Association, Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority, Department of Planning and Development of the City of Seattle and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Samuel Markovich v. Mandeville City, et al
as 15-30233
Plaintiff - Appellant: SAMUEL MARKOVICH and DIAMOND PROPERTIES NORTHSHORE, L.L.C.
Defendant - Appellee: CITY OF MANDEVILLE, Louisiana, DONALD J. VILLERE, Individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Mandeville and CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Individually and in his official capacity as Building Official of the Department of Planning and Development, City of Mandeville
Neighbors for Notice LLC v. City of Seattle, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 13-36054
Plaintiff - Appellant: NEIGHBORS FOR NOTICE LLC, a Washington limited liability company
Defendant - Appellee: CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT and DIANE SIGIMURA, Director, Department of Planning and Development
Brush Development, LLC v. The Town of Brookhaven et al
as 2:2011cv03297
Plaintiff: Brush Development, LLC
Defendant: The Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, The Department of Planning, Environment & Development of the Town of Brookhaven, The Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Aspen Creek Estates, Inc. v. The Town of Brookhaven et al
as 2:2008cv03271
Plaintiff: Aspen Creek Estates, Inc. and Aspen Creek Estates, Inc.
Defendant: The Town of Brookhaven, The Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven and The Department of Planning, Environment & Development of the Town of Brookhaven
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Arundel Plantation Properties LLC et al v. Georgetown County Council et al
as 2:2008cv02523
Plaintiff: Arundel Plantation Properties LLC, Arundel Plantation Properties LLC, Breakwater Rice Fields LLC and others
Defendant: Georgetown County Council, Johnny Morant, Georgetown County Department of Planning and Development and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Type: Civil Rights None

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.


Why Is My Information Online?