Cases 1 - 10 of 313
Emrit et al v. The Republic of Cuba et al
as 1:2024cv00482
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segreated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America
Defendant:
The Republic of Cuba, Embassy of Cuba, Cuban Intelligence Service (CIS) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Stuart v. City of Scottsdale, et al.
as 24-2386
Plaintiff:
MARK STUART, an Individual and Chairman doing business as Save Our Preserve Incorporated doing business as Save Our Preserve Political Action Committee of Scottsdale
Defendant:
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, a Municipal Corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, TOM CLEARY, JASON GLENN and others
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 et al v. Rubio et al
as 1:2024cv00454
Plaintiff:
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America
Defendant:
Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Rick Scott, Senator Chris Coons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2271 Federal Tort Claims Act
Emrit v. United States Embassy of Poland et al
as 1:2024cv00455
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit Presidential Candidate Number P60005535; also known as (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America and (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee
Defendant:
United States Embassy of Poland, Embassy of Poland in the United States, State Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Emrit et al v. Roberts et al
as 1:2024cv00456
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segreated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America
Defendant:
Hon. John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Samuel Alito and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Emrit et al v. The Republic of Cuba et al
as 3:2024cv00629
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segreated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America
Defendant:
The Republic of Cuba, Embassy of Cuba, Cuban Intelligence Service (CIS) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 et al v. Roberts et al
as 3:2024cv00675
Plaintiff:
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF)
Defendant:
John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and others
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 et al v. Rubio et al
as 3:2024cv00666
Plaintiff:
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 doing business as United Emrits of America
Defendant:
Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Chris Coons and others
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 et al v. United States Embassy of Poland et al
as 3:2024cv00669
Plaintiff:
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 doing business as United Emrits of America
Defendant:
United States Embassy of Poland, Embassy of Poland, State Department and others
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 et al v. Biden et al
as 3:2024cv00671
Plaintiff:
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Ronald Satish Emrit and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 doing business as United Emrits of America
Defendant:
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, United States Secret Service and others
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.
