Cases 11 - 20 of 31
Chen v. Waverly Eastern Brooklyn Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv01644
Defendant:
Michael Chen, Waverly Eastern Brooklyn Inc. and Liab O Cheng
Plaintiff:
Yi Chen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Christopher Chuang v. Michael Chen et al
as 2:2019cv01478
Defendant:
Michael Chen and Wei Wen
Plaintiff:
Christopher Chuang
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1109
Vahe Sarkiss v. Jan W. Duncan et al
as 2:2017cv06866
Defendant:
Ramadas Abboy, Ramadas Abboy, M. Aird and others
Plaintiff:
Vahe Sarkiss
Milian Hong et al v. Lourdes Tuliau et al
as 2:2016cv05278
Defendant:
Matthew Anderson, Does and Lourdes Tuliau
Plaintiff:
Michael Chen and Milian Hong
COLEMAN v. JOHNSON et al
as 2:2016cv01348
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER M. COLEMAN
Defendant:
JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA), THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY APPELLATE BORD (OPRAB) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ping v. NO, 1 Great Wall of Fulton 168 et al
as 2:2016cv01304
Defendant:
Michael Chen, NO, 1 Great Wall of Fulton 168, Wendy Wang and others
Plaintiff:
Ni Ping
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Hitt v. Vericlaim, Inc. et al
as 3:2015cv01133
Plaintiff:
Anthony Hitt
Defendant:
Vericlaim, Inc., Iron Horse Recovery, LLC, Yuan Tai Furniture, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
COLEMAN v. U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
as 2:2015cv05385
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER M. COLEMAN
Defendant:
JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA), THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY APPELLATE BOARD (OPRAB) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Chen v. USA
as 3:2014cv04472
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Michael Chen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Chen v. Corrections Corporation of America
as 2:2014cv02244
Plaintiff:
Michael Chen
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
