Cases 1 - 10 of 37
Emrit v. Combs, et al
as 24-1234
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN "P. DIDDY" COMBS, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS
Emrit v. Combs, et al
as 24-1231
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SEAN "P. DIDDY" COMBS, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT and ATLANTIC RECORDS
EMRIT v. COMBS et al
as 1:2024cv00037
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
P. "DIDDY" COMBS, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT, ATLANTIC RECORDS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Emrit v. Combs et al
as 1:2024cv00038
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Sean P. Diddy Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment and Atlantic Records
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Emrit v. FNU LNU, Special Agent
as 23-1207
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant / Appellee:
LNU FNU, Special Agent in charge of FBI Field Office in Southern District of New York (SDNY) and FNU LNU, Special Agent in charge of FBI Field Office in Southern District of New York (SDNY)
Emrit v. Special Agent in Charge of FBI Field Office
as 22-1955
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Respondent / Appellee:
SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF FBI FIELD OFFICE IN SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (SDNY)
Emrit v. LNU
as 1:2022cv00517
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
FNU LNU
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Emrit v. FBI
as 3:2022cv30154
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
FBI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
EMRIT v. SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF FBI FIELD OFFICE
as 1:2022cv00358
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF FBI FIELD OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Emrit v. Yale University
as 3:2022cv30151
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Yale University
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
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.
