Cases 51 - 60 of 447
Verdin v. Lyft, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv12037
Plaintiff:
Daniel Verdin
Defendant:
Lyft, Inc. and Genli Pimentel Eusebio
Not Classified By Court:
Judge Marianne B. Bowler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Muhammad et al v. Lyft
as 8:2023cv02305
Plaintiff:
Raihannah Muhammad and Tavon Freeland-Scott
Defendant:
Lyft, Inc. and Lfyt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Auto Negligence
SHACKELFORD v. KNA SOLUTIONS, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv02385
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA SHACKELFORD
Defendant:
KNA SOLUTIONS, LLC and LYFT, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
SASSELLI v. LYFT INC. et al
as 2:2023cv03103
Plaintiff:
RICHARD SASSELLI
Defendant:
LYFT INC., MOKAROM HOSSAIN and JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00838
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Garcia v. Lyft, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv03897
Defendant:
John Doe, Lyft, Inc. doing business as Lyft Drives South Carolina, Inc., Kristi and others
Plaintiff:
Zhanna Garcia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Ancrum v. Lyft Inc et al
as 3:2023cv01740
Plaintiff:
Mattie Rachelle Ancrum
Defendant:
Lyft, Inc. d/b/a Lyft Drives Texas, Inc., Lyft Center, Inc., Dartanyan Jamerson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc.
as 23-2236
Appellant:
AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
Appellee:
LYFT, INC.
AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc.
as 23-2237
Appellant:
AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
Appellee:
LYFT, INC.
Muller v. Lyft, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv01929
Plaintiff:
Thomas Muller
Defendant:
Lyft, Inc., Vanessa Bond and Odinakachi Anyadike
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Auto Negligence
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.
