Cases 41 - 50 of 11,894
Tabraue et al v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
as 1:2024cv21231
Plaintiff:
Maria Tabraue and Mario Tabraue
Defendant:
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02493
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions
United States of America v. Bustamante
as 24-1966
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
MARIO RICHARD BUSTAMANTE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02639
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Jaramillo v. AT&T, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00761
Plaintiff:
C. Mario Jaramillo
Defendant:
AT&T Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Property Damage
Dawes v. Ausbury, et al.
as 24-1924
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM DAWES
Defendant:
HOWARD AUSBURY, Lt. at RJD, MARIO ZUNIGA, Correctional Officer, SHELLANO, Correctional Officer and others
Waller v. City of Nogales, et al.
as 24-1864
Plaintiff:
CORA J. WALLER, on her own behalf and as a personal representative of the estate of Glen Ray Cockrum, Jr.
Defendant:
CITY OF NOGALES, ROY BERMUDEZ, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ and others
HAFEZ v. VIDINO et al
as 1:2024cv00873
Plaintiff:
FARID HAFEZ
Defendant:
LORENZO VIDINO, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, PROGRAM FOR EXTREMISM AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02243
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Martinez v. Bruce P., et al.
as 24-1810
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MARTINEZ, JR.
Defendant:
BRUCE P., Owner - Porterville Citrus, TONY L., Owner - Porterville Citrus, MARIO, Supervisor - Porterville Citrus and others
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.
