Cases 1 - 10 of 11
CRUMBLEY v. ROBERTS et al
as 2:2023cv01575
Petitioner:
THADDEUS CRUMBLEY
Respondent:
MARK ROBERTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Roberts v. Family Practice Center, PC
as 4:2022cv01804
Plaintiff:
Mark Roberts
Defendant:
Family Practice Center, PC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Data Breach
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv04151
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Roberts v. Saul
as 3:2020cv01612
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Mark Roberts
Defendant:
Andrew Saul
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
ROBERTS v. BROOMALL OPERATING COMPANY, LP et al
as 2:2016cv01504
Plaintiff:
MARK ROBERTS
Defendant:
BROOMALL OPERATING COMPANY, LP and SAVASENIORCARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv01710
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Zindle et al
as 3:2013cv00432
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
Mark Robert Zindle and Shirley Zindle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1471 Declaratory & Injunctive Relief - Foreclo
RODALE INC. v. ROBERTS et al
as 5:2012cv04493
Plaintiff:
RODALE INC.
Defendant:
MARK ROBERTS, FUNK ROBERTS FITNESS and SPARTACUSWORKOUT.COM
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Simms v. Maholick et al
as 3:2008cv00508
Plaintiff:
Mark Robert Simms
Defendant:
Robert Maholick and Times-Leader Newspaper
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Simms v. Times Shamrock Press et al
as 3:2007cv02088
Plaintiff:
Mark Robert Simms
Defendant:
Times Shamrock Press, Times Leader Newspaper, Central Courts and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
