Cases 1 - 10 of 27
In re: Scott McDonald
as 26-11143
Petitioner:
In re: SCOTT MCDONALD
Respondent:
BETH MCDONALD and BROOKE DUMONT
Rong v. State of Arizona, et al.
as 26-1260
Plaintiff:
YI RONG, on behalf of C.R.C
Defendant:
STATE OF ARIZONA, HELENA SEYMOUR, KENDRICK WILSON and others
McDonald v. McDonald et al
as 5:2025cv02226
Plaintiff:
Scott McDonald
Defendant:
Beth McDonald and Brooke Dumont, Esq
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Rong v. State of Arizona, et al.
as 25-6979
Plaintiff:
YI RONG, on behalf of C.R.C
Defendant:
STATE OF ARIZONA, HELENA SEYMOUR, KENDRICK WILSON and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2025cv01477
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
McDonald v. Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney - Pomona
as 24-342
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL SCOTT MCDONALD
Defendant / Appellee:
LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY - POMONA
Leblanc et al v. City of Pawtucket et al.
as 1:2023cv00511
Plaintiff:
Noah Leblanc, Stephen Garlick, Manuel Benevides and others
Defendant:
City of Pawtucket, Mario Comella and John Trenteseaux
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
HOOD v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2023cv00391
Plaintiff:
TODD HOOD
Defendant:
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MARTIN MAGNUSSON, LARS OLSEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Scott McDonald v. Pomona District Attorneys Office
as 2:2023cv04461
Plaintiff:
Michael Scott McDonald
Defendant:
Pomona District Attorneys Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McDonald et al v. Two Harbors Machine Shop et al
as 1:2022cv00826
Plaintiff:
Robert Scott McDonald and Sandra McDonald
Defendant:
Two Harbors Machine Shop d/b/a Serco Loaders, Gryb Immo USA, Inc., Milsco, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
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.
