Cases 1 - 10 of 5,666
Tonneyck et al v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. et al
as 4:2024cv02619
Plaintiff:
Reony Tonneyck, Robert Hann and Ronald Hinton
Defendant:
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., Roxanne Bowman, Elaine L. Chao and others
Jackson v. Ford Motor Company et al
as 1:2024cv00524
Plaintiff:
Ryan Jackson
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company and Freeway Toyota of Hanford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Jackson v. Pitt
as 1:2024cv00200
Plaintiff:
Carmela Lynn Jackson
Defendant:
William Brad Pitt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jackson v. Depp
as 1:2024cv00199
Plaintiff:
Carmela Lynn Jackson
Defendant:
Johnny Christopher Depp
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jackson v. City of Stockton et al
as 2:2024cv01219
Plaintiff:
Darryl Jackson
Defendant:
City of Stockton and Anthony Perry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Trustees of the Cascade Pension Trust v. Harju, et al
as 1:2024cv00714
Plaintiff:
Trustees of the Cascade Pension Trust
Defendant:
Lacy Harju, Estate of Lorrin Patrick Jackson, Amanda R. Leonardo and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Kiser v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al.
as 24-2663
Plaintiff:
KATHERINE KISER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TERRANCE JACKSON and DOES, 1-5
Erik Jackson Williams v. Riverside County et al
as 5:2024cv00859
Plaintiff:
Erik Jackson Williams
Defendant:
Riverside County, Riverside County Sheriff Department, Coello and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00578
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Warren v. Nanos, et al.
as 24-2601
Plaintiff:
JOHNNY LEE WARREN
Defendant:
CHRIS NANOS, Sheriff, LAURA CONOVER, County Attorney, SAMANTHA WALKER, CES Dut 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.
