Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Park v. Fox et al
as 3:2024cv00402
Plaintiff:
Nathan Park
Defendant:
Travis Fox, Michelle Fox, Bryant Andrus and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Modern Eminence LLC et al v. Nathan Park
as 2:2024cv00348
Plaintiff:
Modern Eminence LLC and Modern Fortress, Inc.
Defendant:
AllRealms Inc. and Nathan Park
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Bateman v. United States of America
as 2:2023cv08007
Petitioner:
Nathan Parke Bateman
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Bateman v. Murray
as 2:2022cv00070
Petitioner:
Nathan Parke Bateman
Respondent:
Sheriff Bill Murray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bateman v. Shelby County Jail
as 2:2021cv01467
Petitioner:
Nathan Parke Bateman
Respondent:
Shelby County Jail and John Sanmiago
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bateman v. Cone et al
as 2:2021cv01285
Plaintiff:
Nathan Parke Bateman
Defendant:
Matt Cone, Wayne Knight, Samuel Ebeyer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KIM et al v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
as 2:2015cv05807
Plaintiff:
JAE-YEON KIM and SANGYOON NATHAN PARK
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Kim et al v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
as MD/1:15-cv-01925
Plaintiff:
Jae-Yeon Kim and Sangyoon Nathan Park
Defendant:
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
Kim et al v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
as 1:2015cv01925
Plaintiff:
Jae-Yeon Kim and Sangyoon Nathan Park
Defendant:
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Parks v. Wendy's International, LLC et al
as 2:2015cv01212
Plaintiff:
Nathan Parks
Defendant:
Wendy's International, LLC and Wendy's International, Inc.
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.
