Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv10321
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Prouty v. Thippanna, et al
as 21-1724
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KAREN PROUTY
Defendant / Appellee:
RAMAKRISHNA THIPPANNA, BOGDAN NEDELESCU and DOUGLAS PARKER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carolyn Parker, APRN
Defendant:
IDANIS BERRIOS MORALES, JOHNNY S. SALAMEH, UMASS MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. and others
Interested Party:
DONNA MCELROY-ROUTHIER, JOANNE BRUELL, ASHLEY THOMPSON and others
USA v. $250,000.00 in funds from bank account xxxxxx4099, in the name of Gopalkrishna Pai at BBVA Compass Bank in Brimmingham, AL, and $15,202.54 in funds from bank account xxxxxxxx3734, in the nam
as 3:2019cv02029
Plaintiff:
USA
Defendant:
$250,000.00 in funds from bank account xxxxxx4099, in the name of Gopalkrishna Pai at BBVA Compass Bank in Brimmingham, AL, and $15,202.54 in funds from bank account xxxxxxxx3734, in the nam
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1341 Complaint for Forfeiture
Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Ly
as 1:2017cv00383
Defendant:
Thuy Nam Ly
Plaintiff:
Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Tham v. Mitchell
as 15-2134
Petitioner - Appellant:
NAM THE THAM
Respondent - Appellee:
LISA A. MITCHELL, Superintendent
Nam The Tham v. Mitchell
as 1:2012cv11755
Petitioner:
Nam The Tham
Respondent:
Lisa Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Penn-Millers Insurance Company v. Nam Tu Duong, et al.
as 1:2011cv12289
Plaintiff:
Penn-Millers Insurance Company
Defendant:
Nam Tu Duong and Tay Tu Duong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Nam et al v. Paolini et al
as 1:2011cv11320
Plaintiff:
Soonil Nam and Elizabeth Kim
Defendant:
Gabriella Paolini and Indiana Center for Advanced Medicine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
