Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01505
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Saleem v. Pullen
as 3:2023cv00147
Petitioner:
Muhammad Saleem
Respondent:
T. Pullen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Luxottica Group, SPA v. Farmington Fuels Corporation et al
as 3:2022cv01322
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group SPA
Defendant:
Farmington Fuels Corporation and Muhammad Khan
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00424
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Mirza et al v. Dolce Vida Medical Spa, LLC et al
as 3:2021cv00772
Defendant:
Dolce Vida Medical Spa, LLC and Scott Callahan
Plaintiff:
Allied Medical and Diagnostic Services, LLC and Muhammad Mirza
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Czarkosky v. USA et al
as 3:2019cv01480
Plaintiff:
Thomas Czarkosky
Defendant:
United States, Chaudhry Muhammad Saleem, United States Department of Agriculture and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00611
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Chaudhry et al v. A.R.S. Restoration Specialists, Inc.
as 3:2017cv01521
Plaintiff:
Shamim Chaudhry , Muhammad Younis Chaudhry and Naveed Chaudhry
Defendant:
A.R.S. Restoration Specialists, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Chaudhry et al v. Amica Mutual Ins Co
as 3:2017cv01349
Defendant:
Amica Mutual Ins Co
Plaintiff:
Shamim Chaudhry , Muhammad Younis Chaudhry , Naveed Chaudhry and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv01773
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
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.
