Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Frederick Pina et al v. Mark C Scarsi
as 2:2025cv10523
Plaintiff:
Frederick Pina
Defendant:
Mark C. Scarsi and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Pina v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles
as 25-6804
Petitioner:
FREDERICK PINA
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Pina v. The United States of America
as 25-2606
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK PINA and JAPANESE JUICES, LLC, A Delaware Company
Defendant:
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A government entity
Frederick Pina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as 2:2025cv08920
Plaintiff:
Frederick Pina
Defendant:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable
Pina v. Merle
as 1:2025cv05231
Plaintiff:
Frederick Pina
Defendant:
Judge Natasha C. Merle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as 1:2025cv04716
Plaintiff:
Frederick Pina
Defendant:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable
Pina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as 1:2025cv06589
Plaintiff:
Frederick Pina
Defendant:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Pina v. New York State Gaming Commission
as 25-1842
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK PINA
Defendant:
NEW YORK STATE GAMING COMMISSION, JOHN A. CROTTY, sued both in their personal and official capacity, as Commissioner(s) of the New York State Gaming Commission, SYLVIA B. HAMER, sued both in their personal and official capacity, as Commissioner(s) of the New York State Gaming Commission and others
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.
