Cases 1 - 10 of 91
THE CONCRETE COMPANY v. LACH
as 4:2026cv00031
Plaintiff:
THE CONCRETE COMPANY
Defendant:
MICHAEL LACH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
LACHS v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2025cv06388
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW LACHS
Defendant:
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Lach v. State of Missouri
as 3:2025cv05054
Plaintiff:
Christopher James Lach
Defendant:
State of Missouri
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2025cv01646
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (e)(2) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Lightfoot v. Oak Bend Medical Center et al
as 4:2025cv00837
Plaintiff:
Dr. Jan Elizabeth Lightfoot, Jan Christopher and Janice Marie Banks
Defendant:
Oak Bend Medical Center, Dr. Courtney Landry, RN Cathy Landry and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2025cv00028
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff:
Alexia Lache Moore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Pittman v. Breier
as 24-3253
Respondent:
MATTHEW D. SCHWARZ, GEIST SCHWARZ & JELLINEK, PLLC, Judge HAGLER and others
Petitioner:
JAMES PETTUS
Plaintiff:
DEBORAH PITTMAN
Pittman v. Breier
as 24-3249
Defendant:
Board of Directors 800 GRAND CONCOURSE OWNERS, INC., Judge MCSHAN, Judge MIRIAM BREIER and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES PETTUS and DEBORAH PITTMAN
Pittman v. Breier
as 24-3243
Respondent:
Board of Directors 800 GRAND CONCOURSE OWNERS, INC., GEIST SCHWARZ & JELLINEK, PLLC, Judge MCSHAN and others
Plaintiff:
DEBORAH PITTMAN
Petitioner:
JAMES PETTUS
Pittman v. Breier
as 24-3238
Defendant:
Judge MCSHAN, GEIST SCHWARZ & JELLINEK, PLLC, Judge MIRIAM BREIER and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES PETTUS and DEBORAH PITTMAN
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.
