Cases 71 - 80 of 1,650
Guarniere v. City of New York
as 23-851
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Damien Guarniere
Defendant / Appellee:
City of New York, Omar Ibrahim and John or Jane Doe 1-10
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, PC et al v. Double Why Design, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv03842
Plaintiff:
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, PC and Naon Physical Therapy P.C.
Defendant:
Double Why Design, Inc., Young Jun Youn, Barbra Joanne Mangibin and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C. et al v. Double Why Design, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv03842
Plaintiff:
Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C. and Naon Physical Therapy P.C.
Defendant:
Double Why Design, Inc., Young Jun Youn, Barbra Joanne Mangibin and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Serett Metalworks v. Nicholson Corporation et al.
as 1:2023cv03708
Plaintiff:
Serett Metalworks
Defendant:
NICHOLSON CORPORATION, John and Jane Does 1-10 and Business Entities A-J
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Cho v. Osaka Zen Spa
as 23-813
Plaintiff / Appellee:
So Young Cho
Defendant:
Osaka Zen Spa, Boksil Paula Lee, In her individual and official capacity, Joshia Lee, In his individual and official capacity and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Nan Hi Lee, in her individual and official capacity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03579
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03504
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03452
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03403
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Blesofsky et al v. Natik et al
as 1:2023cv03407
Plaintiff:
ELISHEVA BLESOFSKY and HILLEL BLESOFSKY
Defendant:
JOHN and JANE DOES, 1-10, YISROEL A. NATIK, CONGREGATION OHR MENACHEM and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
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.
