Cases 1 - 10 of 672
United Spinal Association, et al. v. State of California, et al.
as 24-2755
Plaintiff:
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, NOT DEAD YET, INSTITUTE FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS and others
Defendant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, ROBERT BONTA and others
Other:
COMPASSION & CHOICES ACTION NETWORK, LAMBERT BASSLER, JUDITH COBURN and others
USA v. De Dios Garcia-Madrigal
as 24-20183
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Juan De Dios Garcia-Madrigal
United Spinal Association, et al. v. State of California, et al.
as 24-2751
Plaintiff:
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, NOT DEAD YET, INSTITUTE FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS and others
Defendant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor, ROBERT BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General and others
Mora Alvarez, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2698
Petitioner:
FRANCISCO MORA ALVAREZ, MARIA MADRIGAL GARIBO, MARIA MORA MADRIGAL and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
(PC) Wilson v. Molina et al
as 1:2024cv00499
Plaintiff:
Dashawn Combs Wilson
Defendant:
C. Molina, J. Banania, B. Madrigal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(SS) Madrigal v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00415
Plaintiff:
Eredina Madrigal
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Cuper Development LLC et al v. City of Cudahy et al
as 2:2024cv02833
Plaintiff:
Cuper Development LLC, Go Cudahy LLC, Davina LLC and others
Defendant:
City of Cudahy, Alfonso Noyola, Elizabeth Alcantar and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Turner v. Weston, et al.
as 24-1856
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY R. TURNER and Anthony Richardo Turner
Defendant:
W. WESTON, A. CAMPIN, Judge, Martinez Court - Contra Costa County, C. BIRCH and others
United States of America v. Chavez
as 24-1348
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ANGELA MADRIGAL CHAVEZ
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.
