Cases 1 - 10 of 20
S/M MERGER ARBITRAGE, L.P. v. EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al
as 2:2023cv20898
Plaintiff:
S/M MERGER ARBITRAGE, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and S/M MERGER ARBITRAGE, L.P.
Defendant:
EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,, MARK H. RACHESKY, MICHAEL WEISER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
TANNENBAUM v. REFOCUS EYE HEALTH OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT, P.C.
as 2:2023cv02204
Plaintiff:
MARK H TANNENBAUM and MARK H. TANNENBAUM
Defendant:
REFOCUS EYE HEALTH OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT, P.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
TIDMAN v. EMINENCE HARDSCAPES LLC et al
as 1:2022cv05441
Plaintiff:
MARK H. TIDMAN
Defendant:
EMINENCE HARDSCAPES & POOL DESIGNS LLC, ANTHONY DIMATTEO, KIMBERLY MONACO and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
BATINKOFF v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. et al
as 3:2018cv16388
Defendant:
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. and MARK H. KRESS
Plaintiff:
RANDALL BATINKOFF
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
BUCKSHAW v. KANE et al
as 1:2018cv00408
Petitioner:
JOHN J. BUCKSHAW
Respondent:
NEIL KANE, RODNEY CUNNINGHAM, FREDERICK SULLIVAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DEPAUL v. SANDSON et al
as 1:2017cv03482
Plaintiff:
MEAGAN J. DEPAUL
Defendant:
MARK H. SANDSON and JAMES CURCIO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SANTIAGO v. SANDSON et al
as 1:2017cv03481
Plaintiff:
CRISTY C. SANTIAGO
Defendant:
MARK H. SANDSON and JAMES CURCIO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RUSSELL v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2016cv07921
Plaintiff:
MARK H. RUSSELL
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MUNIVE v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al
as 2:2015cv01206
Plaintiff:
GLADYS MUNIVE
Defendant:
PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI, HILDNER, COCOZIELLO & CHATTMAN, P.C., BUGLIONE, HUTTON & DEYOE, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
