Cases 11 - 20 of 40
Harshod Mehta et al v. City of Upland et al
as 2:2015cv04495
Defendant:
James Harold Bell, III, Lavelle Brown, City of Upland and others
Plaintiff:
Harshod Mehta and Kaushika Mehta
James Campbell Company LLC v. Heirs or Assigns of Kaluau, et al.
as 1:2015cv00132
Plaintiff:
James Campbell Company LLC
Defendant:
Kaluau, Heirs Or Assigns Of, Kaka, Heirs Or Assigns Of, Makaluhi, Heirs or Assigns of and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Louis Jean-Louis v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al
as 14-56135
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LOUIS J. JEAN-LOUIS, Private Attorney General
Defendant - Appellee:
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, DEBORAH BRIGNAC and others
Jean-Louis v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
as 5:2014cv00199
Defendant:
Linda A. Bammann, Angela Barry, Tom Basmajian and others
Plaintiff:
Louis J. Jean-Louis
Ratcliff v. Dimon et al
as 2:2014cv00062
Plaintiff:
Richard Ratcliff
Defendant:
Jamie Dimon, James A. Bell , Crandall C Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Shlosberg v. Dimon et al
as 2:2013at01433
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Shlosberg
Defendant:
James Dimon, James A. Bell, Crandall C. Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Shlosberg v. Dimon et al
as 2:2013cv02573
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Shlosberg , Joliet Fire Pension Fund and Richard Ratcliff
Defendant:
James Dimon, James A. Bell, Crandall C. Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv01233
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2011cv00978
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Bell v. Thomas
as 1:2011cv00243
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
Warden Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
