Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Glitch Productions Pty Ltd v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
as 2:2025cv00407
Plaintiff:
Glitch Productions Pty Ltd
Defendant:
sociral, Yiwu Moyun Import & Export Co., Ltd., qinglinkang and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Mob Entertainment, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2025cv06521
Plaintiff:
Mob Entertainment, Inc.
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, AERIFINWIN, HUIHUIerer and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Li v. Peck
as 25-1356
Plaintiff:
DONGMEI LI, -
Defendant:
RICHARD PECK, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC, MACKENZIE D'LORIO and others
Li v. Peck
as 24-1659
Plaintiff:
DONGMEI LI
Defendant:
RICHARD PECK, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC, MACKENZIE D'LORIO and others
Li v. Connecticut
as 22-2863
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Dongmei Li
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Connecticut, Dept of Public Health, Connecticut, Dept of Mental Health & Addiction Svcs, Connecticut and others
Li v. State of Connecticut
as 22-1980
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Dongmei Li
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Connecticut, Dept of Public Health, Connecticut, Dept of Mental Health & Addiction Svcs, Connecticut and others
Jingchun Zhang v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al
as 2:2022cv05614
Plaintiff:
Jingchun Zhang
Defendant:
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director UR M JADDOU, Rosemary Langley Melville and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Li v. Connecticut et al
as 3:2021cv00996
Plaintiff:
Dongmei Li
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Dept of Public Health, Dept of Mental Health & Addiction Svcs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jingchun Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 13-74355
Petitioner:
JINGCHUN ZHANG
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
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.
