Cases 1 - 10 of 82
C.S. v. Subway Worldwide, Inc., et al
as 3:2024cv00031
Plaintiff:
C. S.
Defendant:
Subway Worldwide, Inc. doing business as Subway, Doctor's Associates LLC doing business as Subway, Subway IP LLC doing business as Subway and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, ULC v. Subway Developments 2000 Inc.
as 1:2024cv00593
Petitioner:
Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, ULC
Respondent:
Subway Developments 2000 Inc.
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-10444
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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 1:2023cv00027
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
Charles Barkley, Subway and Fanduel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Interstate Commerce Act
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
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.
