Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Sandhu v. Garland
as 24-60179
Petitioner:
Hargursimranpreet Singh Sandhu
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Walker v. Brazier, MD et al
as 4:2022cv00173
Plaintiff:
Demario Dontez Walker
Defendant:
Dr. William T. Brazier, MD, Dr. Gloria Perry, MD, Dr. Guardial Sandhu and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Witherspoon v. Smead et al
as 4:2021cv00855
Plaintiff:
Edwin Horton Witherspoon, Jr
Defendant:
FNU Smead #664, FNU Andrews, John Doe #1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Gray Casualty & Surety Company v. ZOK Logistics Inc. et al
as 4:2021cv01866
Defendant:
AG EXPRESS LINE, INC., MOLDEX INC., ROAD RUNNING TRUCKING CORP. and others
Plaintiff:
The Gray Casualty & Surety Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Pacific Premier Bank v. Sandhu et al
as 3:2020cv00273
Defendant:
Kulwant Kaur Sandhu, Ramneck Singh Aulakh, Talent Acquisition Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Pacific Premier Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ramanpreet Sandhu v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
as 19-60640
Petitioner:
RAMANPREET SINGH SANDHU
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Walker v. Hall et al
as 3:2019cv00324
Defendant:
Doctor Unknown Sandhu and Pelicia Hall
Plaintiff:
Larry Walker
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sagandeep Singh-Sandhu v. Matthew Whitaker
as 19-60034
Respondent:
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
SAGANDEEP SINGH SANDHU and SAGANDEEP SINGH-SANDHU
John Hale v. Roland Abangan, et al
as 18-60183
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN ASHLEY HALE
Defendant - Appellee:
DR. ROLAND ABANGAN, Official and Individual Capacity, DR. JOHN DOE, Official and Individual Capacity, JOHN AND JANE DOES and others
Sandhu v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
as 4:2018cv00057
Plaintiff:
Ajitpal Sandhu
Defendant:
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
