Cases 21 - 30 of 64
Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, PC
as 20-1620
Defendant / Appellee:
NEXTICKETING, INC., WILLIAM BORCHARD, STEVE SIMON and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
AMY R. GURVEY
Defendant:
MICHAEL GORDON and DOES, 1-X Inclusive
Plasola v. State of California
as 20-1555
Defendant / Appellee:
ROGER HUBBARD, DOES, 1-10 and STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JESSE B. PLASOLA
Arunachalam v. IBM
as 20-1493
Defendant / Appellee:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, SAP AMERICA, INC. and J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
Defendant:
DOES 1-100
Simmons v. Spearman
as 20-1227
Defendant / Appellee:
MARION E. SPEARMAN, RALPH DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS
SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.
as 20-1217
Defendant:
DOES 1-10 and OCEAN OPTICS, INC.
Defendant / Appellee:
HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. and HAMAMATSU CORPORATION
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SIONYX LLC and PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Simmons v. Spearman
as 20-1168
Defendant / Appellee:
MARION E. SPEARMAN, RALPH DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS
Askan v. Faro Technologies, Inc.
as 19-2412
Defendant / Appellee:
FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10
Plaintiff / Appellant:
YOLDAS ASKAN
SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.
as 19-2359
Defendant:
DOES 1-10 and OCEAN OPTICS, INC.
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE and SIONYX LLC
Defendant / Appellant:
HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. and HAMAMATSU CORPORATION
WCM Industries, Inc. v. IPS Corporation
as 19-1773
Defendant / Appellant:
IPS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
Defendant:
AMERICAN BRASS & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY COMPANY, a California corporation and JOHN DOE, an individual
Plaintiff / Appellee:
WCM INDUSTRIES, INC., a Colorado corporation
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.
