Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Pena v. NY1 Transmissions Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv05672
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena
Defendant:
NY1 Transmissions Inc. and Motke Barnes
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Pena v. JUUL Labs, Inc. et al
as 3:2020cv06240
Defendant:
Altria Enterprises, LLC, JAMES MONSEES, Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Pena v. Ludlow Ave Corp. et al
as 7:2017cv00456
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena
Defendant:
Ludlow Ave Corp. , Gashi, Inc. and Sal Gashi
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Ivan Pena, et al v. Stephen Lindley
as 15-15449
Plaintiff - Appellant:
IVAN PENA, ROY VARGAS, DONA CROSTON and others
Defendant - Appellee:
STEPHEN LINDLEY, Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms
Amicus Curiae:
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE and others
Ivan Pena, et al v. Stephen Lindley
as 15-15449
Amicus Curiae:
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.,, EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROY VARGAS, DONA CROSTON, BRETT THOMAS and others
Defendant / Appellee:
STEPHEN LINDLEY, Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms
Pena v. Astrue
as 4:2013cv01486
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Pena v. Astrue (DO NOT DOCKET NEW CASE 4:13-cv-1486)
as 4:2013mc00977
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2011cv01571
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Pena et al v. Vargas et al
as 2:2009at00682
Plaintiff:
Ivan Pena, Ivan Pena, Dona Croston and others
Defendant:
Roy Vargas, Roy Vargas and Wilfredo Cid
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.
