Cases 1 - 10 of 100
KAMDEM-OUAFFO, PHD
as 3:2026cv12347
Defendant:
LAW OFFICES GERARD M. GREEN, COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, HILL'S PET NUTRITION INC. and others
Plaintiff:
KAMDEM-OUAFFO, PHD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe, et al v. Evans, et al
as 26-2060
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and JAMES DOE
Defendant:
PAUL EVANS, individually, ROBERT DUNFORD, individually, MELBERT AHEARN, individually and others
Doe, et al v. Sullivan, et al
as 26-2062
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and JAMES DOE
Defendant:
GAIL SULLIVAN, individually, SHERYL HILLIARD, individually, RAYMOND SMITH, individually and others
US v. Rudolph Smith, Jr.
as 26-4462
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
RUDOLPH ALFREDO SMITH, JR.
Gartner Inc. et al v. Virk et al
as 3:2026cv01450
Plaintiff:
Gartner Inc. and Gartner Holdings, LLC
Defendant:
Anmol Virk, Tyler Rudolph and International Data Corporation, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Jackson v. Rudolph
as 3:2026cv01182
Petitioner:
Ronald Jermaine Jackson
Respondent:
S. Rudolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Graham v. Rudolph
as 3:2026cv01164
Petitioner:
William Charles Graham
Respondent:
S. Rudolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kohute v. Contreras et al
as 5:2026cv09604
Plaintiff:
Kevin Kohute
Defendant:
Rudolph Contreras, D.C. Cultivation Center, Cannibus Program and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Rudolph
as 3:2026cv01165
Petitioner:
Ronald Jermaine Jackson
Defendant:
S. Rudolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Graham v. Rudolph
as 3:2026cv01156
Petitioner:
William Charles Graham
Respondent:
S. Rudolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
