Cases 11 - 20 of 68
Padilla v. Lankford
as 1:2022cv00317
Plaintiff:
Hugo Garcia Padilla
Defendant:
Billy Lankford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Gilberto Tejada-Badilla v. Merrick Garland, et al
as 22-3902
Petitioner:
GILBERTO TEJADA-BADILLA, aka Gilberto Tejada-Padilla
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
King v. Fender et al
as 1:2022cv01372
Plaintiff:
Todd A. King
Defendant:
Warden Warden Fender, Assistant Warden Ms King, Unit Manager Padilla and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Padilla et al
as 1:2022cv01234
Plaintiff:
Ashunte Smith
Defendant:
Damian Padilla, S. Mazza, Tonya Bowser and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Roper v. Bankau et al
as 2:2022cv10392
Plaintiff:
Jawana Roper
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Daniel Padilla and Samantha Schanta
Defendant:
Peter Bankau, Dynevor Express LTD and Dynevor Express 2010 LTD
Consolidated Defendant:
Valerie Mock
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Griselda Padilla v. Merrick Garland
as 21-4176
Petitioner:
GRISELDA PADILLA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General
Padilla et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv05603
Plaintiff:
Alfonso Padilla and Marianne Padilla
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Padilla v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv03379
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Rodolfo Padilla
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Padilla v. City of Bloomfield Hills et al
as 2:2021cv11304
Defendant:
Fred Bismack, Christopher Furlong, City of Bloomfield Hills and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Padilla
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Padilla et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv02997
Plaintiff:
Nancy Padilla and Marcos Padilla
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, 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.
