Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv07698
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 1:2023cv07565
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Spin Master Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2023cv05319
Plaintiff:
Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Yiwu Jianyu Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., A2YTE1J3KEU08A and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03625
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01110
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 1:2021cv06316
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Jin v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv02713
Defendant:
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Alex Ignatie, Richard B Black and others
Plaintiff:
Lei Jin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jin v. Sessions
as 17-411
Petitioner:
Lei Jin
Respondent:
Jeff Sessions, United States Attorney General
Jin v. Gidney et al
as 4:2007cv03769
Plaintiff:
Lei Jin
Defendant:
Audrey Gidney, Michael Chertoff and Emelio T. Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Jin v. Gidney et al
as 4:2007mc00626
Plaintiff:
Lei Jin
Defendant:
Audry Gidney, US Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff and others
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.
