Cases 11 - 20 of 448
Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. et al
as 5:2023cv06172
Plaintiff:
Farooq Khan
Defendant:
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., Pasquale Romano and Rex S. Jackson
Khan v. Madsen et al
as 5:2023cv06141
Plaintiff:
Muhammad Khan
Defendant:
Haley Madsen, Arlene Stephens, J. A. Reed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Amazon.Com Inc. et al v. Wasim et al
as 4:2023cv05580
Plaintiff:
Amazon.Com Inc. and Amazon Technologies, Inc.
Defendant:
Wasim Umer, Teknobyl Digital LLC, Umer Wasim and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jones v. Pond et al
as 1:2023cv01489
Plaintiff:
Robin A. Jones
Defendant:
Rachel Pond, Pamela Ombudsperson, Mary Garza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Khan v. Broomfield
as 3:2023cv05249
Petitioner:
Mohammed Zarin Khan
Respondent:
Ron Broomfield
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bridge WF CA Crystal View LP v. Ignacio Salazar et al
as 8:2023cv01801
Plaintiff:
Bridge WF CA Crystal View LP
Defendant:
Ignacio Salazar and Gabriela Salazar
Interested Party:
Naim Khan
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv04826
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01852
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv04657
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Duraisamy v. Sairam Babu et al
as 3:2023cv04620
Defendant:
Thiruvenkatasamy, Senthilrajan, Pradeep Puli Rukmangatha Sairam Babu and others
Plaintiff:
Nagarajan Duraisamy
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
