Cases 1 - 8 of 8
BAILEY v. GAP, INC. et al
as 1:2018cv05630
Defendant:
GAP, INC. , THE GAP, INC. , OLD NAVY and others
Plaintiff:
DEVIDA BAILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
VASQUEZ et al v. SAM'S CLUB et al
as 1:2018cv04000
Plaintiff:
JESSICA VASQUEZ and CARLOS E. VASQUEZ-PAULINO
Defendant:
SAM'S CLUB , CINNAMINSON SAM'S CLUB and JOHN/JANE DOE(S) 1-50
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
HOPPS v. CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2018cv01411
Plaintiff:
BRANDON HOPPS
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT , GEORGE LEWIS, III , ADAM TUVEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ONDINA-VIEIRA v. WALMART STORES EAST, L.P. et al
as 3:2017cv00151
Plaintiff:
MARIA ONDINA-VIEIRA
Defendant:
WALMART STORES EAST, L.P. , WALMART STORE #5142 , ABC-XYZ CORPORATION(S) and others
Cross_claimant:
WALMART STORES EAST, L.P.
Cross_defendant:
ABC-XYZ CORPORATION(S), ABC-XYZ MASONRY AND GENERAL CONTRACTING AND SUB-CONTRACTING COMPANY(IES) and JOHN/JANE DOE(S), 1-50
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WINOGRAD v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
as 2:2016cv04914
Plaintiff:
STEVEN WINOGRAD
Defendant:
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC , JOHN DOE(S), JANE DOE(S) 1-50 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability
WICKS v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2012cv00066
Plaintiff:
AKILAH WICKS
Defendant:
GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT , TOWNSHIP OF GLOUCESTER , COUNTY OF CAMDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
VERECHIA v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2011cv04705
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY J. VERECHIA
Defendant:
GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT , PATROLMAN JOHN A. STIRES, III , SERGEANT JAMES W. SCHRIVER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
THOM v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al
as 1:2011cv04704
Plaintiff:
JOHN THOM
Defendant:
WAL-MART STORES, INC. and JOHN/JANE DOE(S) 1-50
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
