Cases 21 - 30 of 34
MONKS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv04452
Defendant:
AERO HOLDING LLC, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AERO INTERMEDIATE LLC and others
Plaintiff:
BILLY MONKS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ALLEN et al v BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv03340
Plaintiff:
KEYNA SKENANDORE, CHARLES PITTS, ERIKA BANKS and others
Defendant:
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD and OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARIBUABO et al v 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv00893
Plaintiff:
IRA HORNE, MICHAEL COSGROVE, DUSTIN PRICE and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Francis v. Royal et al
as 3:2018cv01196
Defendant:
John Hannaford, James Carter, Gary Savage and others
Plaintiff:
Peterlee Anthony Francis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monk v. Polk County Sheriff's Department et al
as 8:2018cv02107
Defendant:
Polk County Sheriff's Department and Dennis Watkins
Plaintiff:
Erick William Monk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. STAMPELOS et al
as 4:2017cv00524
Plaintiff:
DAVID LEE SMITH
Defendant:
CHARLES STAMPELOS, JAMES HANKINSON, RON FLURY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monks et al v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv14307
Plaintiff:
Steven A. Monks and Deborah J. Monks
Defendant:
Diamond Resorts International, Inc. and Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Monk v. Cambridge
as 8:2017cv01605
Plaintiff:
Louis Monk, Jr.
Defendant:
Roderick Cambridge
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monk v. Morris
as 8:2016cv02817
Plaintiff:
Louis Monk, Jr.
Defendant:
Tiffany Morris
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parsont v. Mehta et al
as 9:2014cv80024
Plaintiff:
Neil Parsont
Defendant:
Ankit Mehta, Tutoring Monk, Inc. and Alexander Heintz
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 0101
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.
