Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv03258
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv04960
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Seegolam v. Angiodynamics, Inc. et al
as 3:2026cv04336
Plaintiff:
Sharda Seegolam
Defendant:
Angiodynamics, Inc. and Navilyst Medical, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 pl Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv01570
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Thyen et al v. Sharda USA, LLC et al
as 4:2026cv04110
Plaintiff:
Ryan Thyen, John Kittelson Farms, Inc., Curt Luken and others
Defendant:
Sharda USA, LLC, CJB Industries, Inc. and Outsource Logistics, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
United States of America v. Bullen (Johnson)
as 26-1163
Defendant:
TIMOTHY BULLEN, JIGAR DADARWALA, NARENDARAKUMA DADARWALA and others
Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv22474
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2026cv00012
Plaintiff:
SHARDA SMITH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 23 U.S.C. § 134 P.I.- Auto Negligence
Sharda Cropchem Limited v. United States of America et al
as 1:2026cv00533
Plaintiff:
Sharda Cropchem Limited
Defendant:
United States Customs and Border Protection, United States and Rodney S. Scott, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv00211
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
