Cases 11 - 20 of 116
Wang et al v. Mhathre et al
as 4:2023cv40055
Plaintiff:
Xing F Wang, 3W Consulting Company and Kathleen P Lee
Defendant:
Nitin J. Mhathre, Seth R Grossman, Robert Marchard and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00092
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv10146
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Lewis et al v. Abramson
as 1:2022cv00126
Plaintiff:
Robert Patrick Lewis, Philip A Luelsdorff, 1AP, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Seth Abramson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Roza v. Lavigne et al
as 1:2022cv11542
Plaintiff:
Regina Roza
Defendant:
Seth Lavigne, Casey Holmes and City of Taunton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Benitez Caceres et al v. Magaziner et al
as 1:2022cv00382
Plaintiff:
Mirca Benitez Caceres and Guillermo Caceres
Defendant:
Seth Magaziner and Albert J. Vitali
BLEWITT v. USA
as 1:2022cv00241
Petitioner:
SETH J BLEWITT
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
CROSSON v. WATERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2022cv00159
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY D CROSSON
Defendant:
WATERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SETH ROLFE, JANE DOES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CAREY v. ETRADE INC
as 2:2022cv00177
Plaintiff:
SETH T CAREY
Defendant:
ETRADE INC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Clervrain et al v. Raimondo et al.
as 1:2022cv00124
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain and Fridelyne Maisoneuve
Defendant:
Gina Raimondo, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
