Cases 21 - 30 of 739
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00793
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00993
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00957
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Bryant v. Duke Energy
as 3:2023cv05288
Petitioner:
Jaquan Hi Keem Bryant
Defendant:
Duke Energy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00834
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
FRANKLIN v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al
as 1:2023cv00833
Plaintiff:
JOY G. FRANKLIN
Defendant:
DUKE UNIVERSITY, THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR DUKE UNIVERSITY and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Morton v. Duke Energy et al
as 6:2023cv04571
Plaintiff:
Carlo L Morton
Defendant:
Duke Energy, C.P.M. Federal Credit Union, T-Mobile and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Battle v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
as 5:2023cv00487
Plaintiff:
Jewelyn Battle
Defendant:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Battle v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. SEE CASE # 5:23-CV-487-D-RJ
as 4:2023cv00142
Plaintiff:
Jewelyn Battle
Defendant:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Segars v. Dukes et al
as 9:2023cv04261
Plaintiff:
Thaddeus F. Segars
Defendant:
Judge Marvin Dukes, III and Judge Carmen Mullen
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.
