Cases 1 - 10 of 191
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1420
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
RICARDO INC., WESLEY SCHARMEN, PHILIP MICHAEL and others
K.P. v. Riverside County Sheriff's Department et al
as 5:2024cv00641
Plaintiff:
K. P.
Defendant:
Riverside County Sheriff's Department, County of Riverside, a public entity, Sheriff Chad Bianco and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00044
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00271
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
P. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 3:2024cv00772
Plaintiff:
minor K. P.
Defendant:
Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier LLC and Doe Defendants 1-50
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00778
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05248
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
P. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv02580
Plaintiff:
K. P.
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Doe Defendants 1-50
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Aparicio Meza v. Garland
as 20-3987
Petitioner:
LORENA PATRICIA APARICIO MEZA and K. P. SALAMANCA APARICIO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 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.
