Cases 71 - 80 of 78,612
KEYS, JR. v. HARDY et al
as 8:2024cv01006
Plaintiff:
OWEN M KEYS, JR.
Defendant:
MELANIE HARDY and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00067
Plaintiff:
Scotty Owens
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Owens v. King County et al
as 2:2024cv00453
Plaintiff:
Tanner Owens
Defendant:
King County, Patti Cole-Tindall and Jesse Anderson
Jimmy Hindman v. John Doe, et al
as 24-5311
Plaintiff:
JIMMY DOYLE HINDMAN
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, Unknown Federal Prison Guard in Memphis, TN, ANGELA M. OWENS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2024cv02490
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Benshoof v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle
as 24-1958
Petitioner:
KURT BENSHOOF
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE
Interested Party:
FREYA BRIER, MOSHE ADMON, CITY OF SEATTLE and others
Owens v. United States of America
as 6:2024cv00556
Plaintiff:
Jordan Owens
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Antitrust
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00333
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
OWENS v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
as 1:2024cv04432
Plaintiff:
DIONNE OWENS
Defendant:
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
OWENS v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
as 2:2024cv04432
Plaintiff:
DIONNE OWENS
Defendant:
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
