Cases 41 - 50 of 360
Penn-America Insurance Co v. Haros L L C et al
as 1:2022cv00706
Petitioner:
Penn-America Insurance Co
Defendant:
HAROS, LLC, MALCOLM X. LARVADAIN, Haros L L C and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Perez, et al. v. Darling Ingredients, Inc., et al.
as 1:2022cv00191
Plaintiff:
Mauricia Perez, Angela Cruz, Juan Cruz and others
Defendant:
John Does I - X
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Haro-Aguilar v. Garland
as 22-591
Petitioner:
JAVIER RAFAEL HARO-AGUILAR
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Gonzalez v. Barber Shop Acapulco, Corp. dba Peluqueria 5 Estrellas et al
as 1:2022cv00471
Plaintiff:
Gregorio Gonzalez
Defendant:
Barber Shop Acapulco, Corp. dba Peluqueria 5 Estrellas, Jaime Haro and Barber Shop Acapulco, Corp doing business as Peluqueria 5 Estrellas
Haro-Banuelos v. Garland
as 22-260
Petitioner:
SERGIO IVAN HARO-BANUELOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Priscilla Aguilar et al v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv09403
Plaintiff:
Priscilla Aguilar, Julian Haro, Juan Madera and others
Defendant:
Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Haro v. Covidien, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv12024
Plaintiff:
Josefina Haro
Defendant:
Covidien, Inc., COVIDIEN, LTD., Covidien plc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Haro v. Bryant et al
as 1:2021cv04478
Plaintiff:
Ricardo Haro
Defendant:
Rodney Bryant and City of Atlanta
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Leprinceton Burks v. Los Angeles Police Department, et al
as 21-56213
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LEPRINCETON DEWON BURKS, AKA Dapper P, AKA P, AKA Pete Williams
Defendant / Appellee:
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, BRADLEY SCHUMACHER, 33696 Police Officer, in official capacity, MARTIN PINNER, 27242, Detective, in official capacity 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.
