Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Manchanda v. Reardon
as 24-392
Plaintiff:
RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA
Defendant:
ABIGAIL REARDON, Attorney Grievance Committee Chief, REMI SHEA, Staff Attorney, JORGE DOPICO, Chief Counsel and others
Manchanda v. Lane
as 24-395
Plaintiff:
RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA and Mrs. SYLWIA EWELINA MANCHANDA
Defendant:
DANA WALSH, AUSA, GREGORY ZIPES, AUST, SEAN LANE, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge and others
Manchanda v. Wang et al
as 1:2023cv09403
Plaintiff:
Mr Rahul Dev Manchanda and Rahul Manchanda
Defendant:
Assistant AG Shi Shi Wang, Letitia James, Judge Erika Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 601 Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Grants to States for Aid and Assistance to Needy Famil
Manchanda v. Reardon et al
as 1:2023cv09292
Plaintiff:
Rahul Dev Manchanda and Rahul Manchanda
Defendant:
Abigail Reardon, Remi Shea, Jorge DoPico and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Wiretapping - Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine
Manchanda et al v. Lane et al
as 1:2023cv07637
Plaintiff:
Attorney Rahul Dev Manchanda, Rahul Manchanda and Mrs. Sylwia Ewelina Manchanda
Defendant:
AUSA Dana Walsh Kumar, AUST Greg M. Zipes, Judge SEAN H LANE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 t Tort Claim
Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department et al
as 1:2023cv03356
Petitioner:
Rahul Dev Manchanda, Esq.
Respondent:
Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Remi Shea, Jorge Dopico and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nr Notice of Removal
Manchanda Esq. v. Senderoff MD
as 1:2021cv05788
Appellant:
Rahul Dev Manchanda
Respondent:
Douglas Senderoff
Plaintiff:
Rahul Manchanda Esq.
Defendant:
Douglas Senderoff MD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv02422
Debtor:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
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.
