Cases 1 - 10 of 6,013
United States of America v. April et al
as 3:2024cv00826
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Kathleen April, Arthur E. Bailey, James M. Becker and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Interpleader Action
Banurs v. Li Auto Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv03470
Plaintiff:
Dinesh Banurs
Defendant:
Li Auto Inc., Xiang Li, Tie Li and others
Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners et al
as 4:2024cv00418
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
New York State Board of Law Examiners, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Li, et al. v. Arcsoft, Inc., et al.
as 24-2964
Plaintiff:
LEI LI, STRONG WEALTH INVESTMENT LIMITED and PACIFIC SMILE LIMITED
Defendant:
ARCSOFT, INC. and MICHAEL DENG
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03401
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1156 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03401
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1156 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03381
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners et al
as 4:2024cv00398
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
New York State Board of Law Examiners, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03290
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Tan v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
as 24-1162
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER SHAPOVALOV, CHEW KING TAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and IGOR LI
Defendant:
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. and MORGAN STANLEY
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.
