Cases 1 - 10 of 148
FEAGIN v. LAWSON et al
as 2:2024cv05835
Plaintiff:
EVETTE CALEN FEAGIN
Defendant:
MR. LAWSON, JEANETTE MATOS and MR. THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Matos v. O'Malley
as 4:2024cv00675
Plaintiff:
Molly Matos
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
MATOS v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
as 2:2023cv05038
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MATOS
Defendant:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
MATOS v. BRIGHT et al
as 2:2023cv02039
Plaintiff:
VICTOR MATOS
Defendant:
MR. J. BRIGHT and MS. LAURENE DONNELLY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WILSON v. MATOS TRANSPORT LLC et al
as 2:2023cv21378
Plaintiff:
OJI R WILSON
Defendant:
MATOS TRANSPORT LLC, TRIPLE J TRUCKING SOLUTIONS LLC and ANDY Y MATOS
Cause Of Action: 23 U.S.C. § 134 P.I.- Auto Negligence
ALFORD v. PLUMERI et al
as 1:2023cv20440
Plaintiff:
CHARLES EARL ALFORD
Defendant:
SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, PENNSAUKEN TOWNSHIP, KEVIN KEYS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MANATA v. TOWNSHIP OF CLARK et al
as 2:2023cv04187
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MANATA
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF CLARK, SALVATORE BONACCORSO, JAMES ULRICH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
MANATA v. TOWNSHIP OF CLARK et al
as 2:2023cv04190
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MANATA
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF CLARK, SALVATORE BONACCORSO, JAMES ULRICH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Almonte v. Barraza
as 1:2023cv00622
Petitioner:
Fransisco Matos Almonte
Respondent:
Warden Barraza
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
MATOS v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
as 2:2023cv01201
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MATOS
Defendant:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal- Personal Injury
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.
