Cases 1 - 10 of 104
Near Field Electronics LLC v. Foot Locker, Inc.
as 4:2025cv00708
Plaintiff:
Near Field Electronics LLC
Defendant:
Foot Locker, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2025cv01104
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2025cv00337
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Woodard v. Foot Locker, Inc. et al
as 7:2024cv00296
Plaintiff:
Deundre Woodard
Defendant:
South Star Logistics, Inc., Foot Locker, Inc., Jorge Morazon and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Hines v. Foot Locker
as 24-576
Plaintiff:
SHERELL ANN HINES
Defendant:
FOOT LOCKER, INC., SHOE SENCES, MONROE COUNTY and others
Fashion Exchange, LLC v. Hybrid Promotions, LLC
as 23-7818
Plaintiff / Appellee:
FASHION EXCHANGE, LLC
Defendant:
JIMMY JAZZ, INC., FOOT LOCKER, INC., FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC. and others
Defendant / Appellant:
HYBRID PROMOTIONS, LLC, JARROD DOGAN, GAVIN DOGAN and others
Fashion Exchange, LLC v. Hybrid Promotions, LLC
as 23-7653
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FASHION EXCHANGE, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
HYBRID PROMOTIONS, LLC, JARROD DOGAN, GAVIN DOGAN and others
S3G Technology LLC v. Foot Locker, Inc.
as 6:2023cv00642
Plaintiff:
S3G Technology LLC
Defendant:
Foot Locker, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04230
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal- Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2023cv04230
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other 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.
