Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Ristea v. Botteri et al
as 1:2024cv00214
Plaintiff:
Octavian Ristea
Defendant:
Philippe Botteri, Daniel Dines, Carl Eschenbach and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 sv Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Gervat et al v. Dines et al
as 1:2023cv01413
Plaintiff:
Hugues Gervat
Defendant:
Daniel Dines, Ashim Gupta, Philippe Botteri and others
Nominal Defendant:
UiPath, Inc.
Bowling v. Dines et al
as 1:2023cv01392
Plaintiff:
Maren K. Bowling
Defendant:
Daniel Dines, Ashim Gupta, Philippe Botteri and others
Nominal Defendant:
UiPath, Inc.
In re UiPath, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation
as 1:2023cv01385
Plaintiff:
Michael Bernstein, Maren K. Bowling and Hugues Gervat
Defendant:
Daniel Dines, Ashim Gupta, Philippe Botteri and others
Nominal Defendant:
UiPath, Inc.
Polilingua Limited v. Dines et al
as 1:2023cv08810
Plaintiff:
Polilingua Limited
Defendant:
Daniel Dines, Ashim Gupta, Philippe Botteri and others
Capistrano v. Cannon-Brookes et al
as 3:2023cv04584
Plaintiff:
Patricia Capistrano
Defendant:
Michael Cannon-Brookes, Scott Farquhar, Anu Bharadwaj and others
Azzawi v. Cannon-Brookes et al
as 1:2023cv00884
Plaintiff:
Omar Azzawi
Defendant:
Michael Cannon-Brookes, Scott Farquhar, Shona Brown and others
Nominal Defendant:
Atlassian Corporation
Keane v. Cannon-Brookes et al
as 1:2023cv00399
Plaintiff:
George Keane and Gregory Keane
Defendant:
Michael Cannon-Brookes, Scott Farquhar, Shona Brown and others
Nominal Defendant:
Atlassian Corporation
In re Atlassian Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation
as 1:2023cv00283
Plaintiff:
Nathan Silva and Gregory Keane
Defendant:
Michael Cannon-Brookes, Scott Farquhar, Shona Brown and others
Nominal Defendant:
Atlassian Corporation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv05462
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
