Cases 21 - 30 of 95
MCMILLAN v. HUGHES et al
as 1:2017cv13435
Plaintiff:
LARRY MCMILLAN
Defendant:
C. RAY HUGHES, SGT. JOHN DOE #1, SCO JOHN DOE #2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MERONVIL v. JANE DOE #1 et al
as 2:2017cv08055
Plaintiff:
LEO MERONVIL
Defendant:
JANE DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARDONA v. BLYTH SHIPHOLDING S.A. et al
as 1:2017cv00593
Plaintiff:
EFRAIN CARDONA
Defendant:
BLYTH SHIPHOLDING S.A., COOL CARRIERS AB, JOHN DOES 1-3 and others
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688
KOMIS v. OWENS et al
as 1:2016cv05716
Plaintiff:
JASON KOMIS
Defendant:
DAVID OWENS, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FUSSELL v. FAMILY DOLLAR et al
as 1:2016cv04898
Plaintiff:
DAWN FUSSELL
Defendant:
FAMILY DOLLAR , JOHN DOES 1-3 and JOHN DOES 4-6
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
BOVIO v. O-LANO et al
as 1:2016cv01291
Plaintiff:
DOMINIC BOVIO
Defendant:
EDWARD O-LANO, DONALD GANSKY, JANE DOE #1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DURSO et al v. DURSO ASSOCIATES, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv07428
Plaintiff:
JOHN R. DURSO , JOSEPH FONTANO , JACK CAFFEY and others
Defendant:
DURSO ASSOCIATES, INC., 1769 SECOND AVENUE CO., LAURA DURSO and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
TATAR et al v. HD DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND, INC. et al
as 3:2015cv05622
Plaintiff:
CAROLE TATAR and CHARLES TATAR
Defendant:
HD DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND, INC. , HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. , JOHN DOES 1-3 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
GRAHAM v. ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2015cv05201
Plaintiff:
JESSICA C. GRAHAM
Defendant:
ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, RODRIGUEZ, JOHN DOE 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BROTHERS MOTORSPORTS, LLC v. BURLINGTON CITY et al
as 1:2014cv03327
Plaintiff:
BROTHERS MOTORSPORTS, LLC
Defendant:
BURLINGTON CITY, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
