Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Edar Rogler v. Alexandra Foto
as 16-1323
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDAR Y. ROGLER
Defendant - Appellee:
ALEXANDRA M. FOTOS, d/b/a Alexandra M. Fotos, in her personal capacity, in her landlord capacity, in her premise owner capacity, for Christine Fotos and NEIL HARPE
Rogler v. Fotos et al
as 1:2014cv00228
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler
Defendant:
Alexandra M. Fotos and Neill Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rogler et al v. Anne Arundel County et al
as 1:2011cv00210
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler and Margarette B. Rogler, MD
Defendant:
Anne Arundel County, Gary M. Elson, Philip Goodman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Rogler et al v. Anne Arundel County et al
as 8:2011cv00210
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler and Margarette B. Rogler, MD
Defendant:
Anne Arundel County, Gary M. Elson, Philip Goodman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
ROGLER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
as 1:2008cv00570
Plaintiff:
EDAR Y. ROGLER
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and OWEN RAY FITZGERALD
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Edar Rogler v. Department of Health and Human
as 08-1363
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDAR Y. ROGLER
Defendant - Appellee:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 08-1025
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Rogler v. Biglow et al
as 1:2007cv01675
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler
Defendant:
William Biglow, Julie Lu, John I Gallin, M.D. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Rogler v. Department of Health and Human Services
as 1:2007cv01676
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler
Defendant:
Department of Health and Human Services
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Right to Privacy Act
Rogler v. Biglow et al
as 1:2007cv01106
Plaintiff:
Edar Y. Rogler
Defendant:
William Biglow, Julie Lu, John I. Gallin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
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.
