Cases 1 - 10 of 70
Ming Liu v. Merrick Garland
as 24-3127
Petitioner:
MING XING LIU
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03850
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 2:2023cv12459
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Sachs v. Ricardo Inc. et al
as 5:2023cv10643
Plaintiff:
George Sachs and George Sachs Doing business as Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
Ricardo Inc., Wesley Scharmen, Philip Michael and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Lancer Insurance Company et al v. Liu
as 3:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
Lancer Insurance Company and Lancer Management Company Inc.
Defendant:
Shenji Liu doing business as Stone Buddha Transport
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment
Liu et al v. U.S. Department of State et al
as 1:2022cv01355
Plaintiff:
Xia-Ying Liu and Chu Tzu Yeh
Defendant:
U.S. Department of State, Antony Blinken and Federal Bureau of Investigation
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Liu et al v. Rock Ridge Insurance Company
as 3:2022cv00239
Plaintiff:
Yajing Liu and Erming Tuo
Defendant:
Rock Ridge Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Hua Zhou, et al v. Merrick Garland
as 22-3543
Petitioner:
HUA ZHOU and MING QUAN LIU
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Winfield Collection, Limited v. Wenzhou Chiteng Shoes Co. et al
as 2:2022cv10772
Plaintiff:
Winfield Collection, Limited
Defendant:
Wenzhou Chiteng Shoes Co. and Liu Ye
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv05579
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
