Cases 1 - 10 of 46
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00204
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00132
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
HINES-BRADLEY v. WHITE-CHAMBERS et al
as 2:2022cv02418
Defendant:
STACEY WHITE-CHAMBERS, STACEY WHITE and PEACEFUL LIVING, INC.
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY HINES-BRADLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
PEACE v. WAWA, INC.
as 2:2020cv00235
Plaintiff:
JANEKA PEACE
Defendant:
WAWA, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION
as 2:2019cv06019
Defendant:
WAWA, INC.
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS RAPAK, SCOTT PECK, Mrs. Tabitha Hans-Arroyo and others
In Re:
WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BOOZER v. PEACE et al
as 3:2019cv00201
Defendant:
BARRY R. SMITH, LISA R. PEACE and MUHAMMAD NAJI
Plaintiff:
RICHARD L. BOOZER, SR. and RICHARD LONEY BOOZER, SR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
PEACE CHURCH RISK RETENTION GROUP et al v. JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP
as 5:2019cv05377
Plaintiff:
CARING COMMUNITIES and PEACE CHURCH RISK RETENTION GROUP
Defendant:
JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GHOLSON v. SMITH et al
as 3:2019cv00175
Defendant:
DAVID CLOSE, PEACE, PAMELA S. OLIVER and others
Plaintiff:
BLAINE KOBY GHOLSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00413
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
URATA-KARPEL v. GENJI, LLC et al
as 2:2019cv01212
Defendant:
GENJI, LLC, TETSUYA (JOSH) ONISHI and PEACE DINING CORPORATION
Plaintiff:
HARUKA URATA-KARPEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
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.
