Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1275
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, FANDUEL and SUBWAY
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1276
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Ronald Emrit v. Charles Barkley, et al
as 23-1271
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Emrit v. Barkley et al
as 3:2023cv00079
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Charles Barkley, Subway and FanDuel
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
EMRIT v. BARKLEY et al
as 2:2023cv00034
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
EMRIT v. BARKLEY et al
as 2:2023cv00156
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
CHARLES BARKLEY, SUBWAY and FANDUEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Interstate Commerce Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv02604
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
RIYA ENTERPRISES LLC v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 2:2021cv16007
Plaintiff:
RIYA ENTERPRISES LLC doing business as SUBWAY
Defendant:
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY and TOP CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
COMMONWEALTH REALTY COMPANY, L.P. v. SUBWAY REAL ESTATE LLC et al
as 5:2016cv06573
Plaintiff:
COMMONWEALTH REALTY COMPANY, L.P.
Defendant:
SUBWAY REAL ESTATE LLC and SUBWAY REAL ESTATE CORP.
Thirdparty_defendant:
RAGHUVIR CHAVDA
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
SUBWAY REAL ESTATE LLC and SUBWAY REAL ESTATE CORP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv00568
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
