Cases 41 - 50 of 119
BANKS et al v. NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2015cv00654
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BANKS and KENNETH POSNER
Defendant:
NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DANIEL PANTALEO, HON. JOY FLOWERS CONTI and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
WEBSTER et al v. N.J. PAROLE
as 3:2014cv06739
Plaintiff:
JAMES WEBSTER, ANTHONY PEARSON, TYREEN WALKER and others
Defendant:
N.J. PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CORPORATE SYNERGIES GROUP, LLC v. DUFFY
as 1:2014cv02976
Plaintiff:
CORPORATE SYNERGIES GROUP, LLC
Defendant:
CHARLES DUFFY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CENTENNIAL BANK v. THE NOAH GROUP, LLC et al
as 3:2013mc00057
Defendant:
THE NOAH GROUP, LLC, RONALD J. COSTELLO, DANIEL J. DUFFY and others
Plaintiff:
CENTENNIAL BANK
CENTENNIAL BANK v. THE NOAH GROUP, LLC et al
as 3:2013mc00058
Plaintiff:
CENTENNIAL BANK
Defendant:
THE NOAH GROUP, LLC, DANIEL J. DUFFY, JOSEPH CANNOVA and others
E.R. v. LOPATCONG TOWNSHIP MIDDLE SCHOOL et al
as 3:2013cv01550
Plaintiff:
E.R.
Defendant:
LOPATCONG TOWNSHIP MIDDLE SCHOOL , LOPATCONG TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT , LOPATCONG TOWNSHIP SCHOOL BOARD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC. v. ACCESS MORTGAGE CORP. et al
as 2:2013cv01054
Plaintiff:
AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC.
Defendant:
ACCESS MORTGAGE CORP., KEYSTONE BANKERS MORTGAGE CO. and CHRISTOPHER DUFFY
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
CESARO v. T & M ASSOCIATES, INC. et al
as 3:2013cv00696
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH CESARO, JR.
Defendant:
T & M ASSOCIATES, INC., EAST COAST DRILLING, INC. and JAMES DUFFY
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
COLON v. CITY OF PATERSON et al
as 2:2012cv01653
Plaintiff:
JOSE COLON
Defendant:
CITY OF PATERSON, ANTHONY CASTRANOVA, TERRENCE DUFFY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
