Cases 1 - 10 of 10
(PC) Coleman v. Dominisse, et al
as 2:2024cv00583
Plaintiff:
Andrew Coleman and Andrew James Coleman
Defendant:
Pamela Jean Dominissa, Kimberly Miller, David McCauhly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Woodruff v. Greenburg et al
as 3:2022cv02788
Plaintiff:
Ivy Woodruff
Defendant:
Jonathan Greenburg, Charles Bryant, Jr., La Kesha Lee Monroe and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Gatlin et al v. Contra Costa County et al
as 3:2021cv00370
Defendant:
Ryan Lee, Jeffery Collins, Francisco Llanes and others
Plaintiff:
Edward Gatlin, Clarissa Simms and Edison Gatlin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller et al v. P.S.C., Inc.
as 3:2017cv05864
Plaintiff:
Kimberly Miller , Briana Houser and Dean Buchholz
Defendant:
P.S.C., Inc. and Does One Through Ten
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Miller v. RS Hotel Ventures LLC
as 4:2017cv00506
Plaintiff:
Kimberly Miller
Defendant:
RS Hotel Ventures LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Terrance Wilburn v. Garren Bracher, et al
as 16-17048
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TERRANCE LAMAR WILBURN
Defendant - Appellee:
GARREN BRACHER, BOBBY DANIELS, GEORGE CHARGIN and others
Moye v. Henderson et al
as 3:2014cv02877
Defendant:
Earl Chan, Uncle Edward Collins, Bonnie Spindles and others
Plaintiff:
Malinka Tacuma Wade Moye
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Valenzuela v. Horne et al
as 2:2011cv00842
Plaintiff:
Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela
Defendant:
Thomas C Horne, Charles L Ryan, Kimberly Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Malinka Moye v. Red Oak Realty, et al
as 10-15108
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MALINKA TACUMA WADE MOYE
Defendant - Appellee:
RED OAK REALTY and KIMBERLY MILLER
Moye v. Red Oak Realty et al
as 3:2009cv03896
Plaintiff:
Malinka Tacuma Wade Moye
Defendant:
Red Oak Realty and Kimberly Miller
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.
