Cases 1 - 10 of 91
Doe (J.R.) v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 3:2024cv00574
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE (J.R.)
Defendant:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, RASIER, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
M. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv05840
Plaintiff:
J.R. M.
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
J.R. v. U.S.A. et al
as 4:2023cv03994
Plaintiff:
J.R.
Defendant:
U.S.A. and Andrew Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv03333
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01138
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00214
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
Marcus et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
as 3:2022cv09058
Defendant:
CLEAVER BROOKS, INC., DOMCO PR.O.DUCTS TEXAS, INC., Honeywell International, Inc. FKA Allied Signal Inc, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL R. MARCUS and VICTORIA L. MARCUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Marcy v. J.R. Simplot Company
as 2:2022cv01971
Plaintiff:
Danielle Marcy
Defendant:
J.R. Simplot Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Marcy v. J.R. Simplot Company
as 1:2022at00865
Plaintiff:
Danielle Marcy
Defendant:
J.R. Simplot Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022mc80285
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex 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.
