Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Roark v. Federal Express Corporation
as 2:2026cv13340
Plaintiff:
Kyle Roark
Defendant:
Federal Express Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Roark v. Federal Express Corporation
as 4:2026cv13374
Plaintiff:
Ryan Roark
Defendant:
Federal Express Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Pasquini et al v. Ziff Davis, Inc. et al
as 3:2026cv09649
Plaintiff:
Jessica Pasquini and Monica Roark
Defendant:
Ziff Davis, Inc. and Everyday Health, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Kent v. Dooley et al
as 3:2026cv03245
Plaintiff:
Delancey Kent
Defendant:
Tyler Dooley, Ray Spoon, Ryan Mahoney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv07080
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ROARK v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al
as 2:2026cv05838
Plaintiff:
MARSHA K ROARK
Defendant:
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
v. Probation & Parole et al
as 2:2026cv02895
Defendant:
LA Dept of Corrections Probation & Parole, Sheriffs Office Rapides Parish, Rapides Parish Detention Center III and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Roark v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 5:2026cv00164
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROARK
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0205 Denial Social Security Benefits
In re: Sisneros
as 26-1287
Petitioner:
JEROME SISNEROS
Respondent:
DEAN WILLIAMS, JERRY ROARK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Roark v. United States of America
as 3:2026cv02363
Petitioner:
Lance Douglas Roark
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
