Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Sardon v. Hughes
as 4:2026cv04224
Petitioner:
Eddie Sardon
Respondent:
Latoya Hughes
Unknown:
Habeas Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gomez v. Sardone et al
as 1:2026cv02822
Plaintiff:
Nelson Gomez
Defendant:
Luigi Sardone, Stonecraft USA, LLC and Bella Italia, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Sardon v. Hughes et al
as 4:2026cv04042
Petitioner:
Eddie Sardon
Respondent:
Latoya Hughes and Kwame Raoul
Unknown:
Habeas Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2025cv01585
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rushing et al v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minesota Mining and Manufacturing Company et al
as 2:2025cv11652
Plaintiff:
Charvella Rushing, Carla Russell, Cheryl Russell and others
Defendant:
AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION,, ARCHROMA U.S., INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Sardon v. Jennings et al
as 3:2024cv02565
Defendant:
C Osborne, K Yocum, Chad Jennings and others
Plaintiff:
Eddie Sardon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sardon v. Dodd et al
as 3:2024cv01523
Plaintiff:
Eddie Sardon
Defendant:
Jill Martin and Dr. Tran
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00058
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00970
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Laibe v. Sardonic Sentiments, Inc. et al
as 2:2019cv02764
Defendant:
Desiree Ontiveros and Sardonic Sentiments, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Margaux Ann Laibe
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0207
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.
