Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Urbina v. POD, LLC d/b/a/ Painters on Demand et al
as 9:2026cv80762
Plaintiff:
Pascual Urbina
Defendant:
POD, LLC d/b/a/ Painters on Demand and SIR PAINTER, LLC d/b/a Painters on Demand
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Urbina v. POD, LLC et al
as 9:2026cv80763
Plaintiff:
Pascual Urbina
Defendant:
POD, LLC doing business as Painters on Demand and SIR PAINTER, LLC doing business as Painters on Demand
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv07585
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
USA v. Dermas-Sanchez
as 26-10564
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Pascual Dermas-Sanchez
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv00705
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Franklin v. Blanchard et al
as 1:2026cv00091
Plaintiff:
KHALID FRANKLIN
Defendant:
JUDGE GRADY BLANCHARD, VETERANS CANTEEN SERVICES, GWENDOLYN BOVAN and others
Special Master:
RANDI GUILLORY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sac-Chox v. Blanche
as 26-60349
Petitioner:
Edwin Pascual Sac-Chox
Respondent:
Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 26-2156
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Thomas-King et al v. Google LLC
as 4:2026cv04439
Plaintiff:
Marvin Thomas-King, James Arcano, Thomas Cattell and others
Defendant:
Google LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01536
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
