Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services et al
as 1:2022cv03959
Plaintiff:
Jose Antonio Ramos
Defendant:
Department of Homeless Services, Breaking Ground and City Of New York
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Romero v. JF Flores Construction Corp. et. al.
as 2:2021cv06246
Plaintiff:
Jose Romero
Defendant:
JF Flores Construction Corp. and Jose F. Ramos Flores
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Romero v. JF Flores Construction Corp. et al
as 1:2021cv09174
Plaintiff:
Jose Romero
Defendant:
JF FLORES CONSTRUCTION CORP. and Jose F. Ramos Flores
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 fl
De La Rosa et al v. El Nuevo Sandy Restaurant Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv09497
Plaintiff:
Justo Ramon De La Rosa, Erick Aguilar, Jose Trinidad Ramos and others
Defendant:
El Nuevo Sandy Restaurant Inc. and Ruben Pichardo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Ramos v. Malloy et al
as 3:2018cv01669
Plaintiff:
Jose E. Ramos
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, George Jepsen, Scott Semple and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ramos v. Malloy et al
as 3:2018cv00744
Plaintiff:
Jose E. Ramos
Defendant:
Dannel P. Malloy, Scott S. Semple, William Mulligan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ramos v. Semple et al
as 3:2018cv00615
Plaintiff:
Jose E. Ramos
Defendant:
Scott S. Semple and William Mulligan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ramos v. Malloy et al
as 3:2018cv00583
Plaintiff:
Jose E. Ramos
Defendant:
Dannel P. Malloy, Town of Suffield, Scott S. Semple and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv03419
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Ramos v. Correction et al
as 3:2015cv01444
Plaintiff:
Jose Eric Ramos
Defendant:
Department of Correction, Anthony J. Bruno, Arcouette and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
