Cases 1 - 10 of 26
(PC) Venable v. St. Andre et al
as 2:2024cv00133
Plaintiff:
Maurice L. Venable
Defendant:
St. Andre, Harwood, M. Robles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Perry v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv10738
Plaintiff:
Susan Perry
Defendant:
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Mehta v. Garland et al
as 1:2022cv00917
Plaintiff:
Rukminesh Mehta
Defendant:
Merrick Garland, Maggie J. Kuhl, The Kuhl Law Office, PLLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
PERRY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2021cv15496
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff:
SUSAN PERRY
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PERRY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 1:2021cv01938
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff:
SUSAN PERRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(PC) Venable v. Perry et al
as 2:2021cv00814
Plaintiff:
Maurice L. Venable
Defendant:
D. Harwood and Susan Perry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Perry-Monroe et al v. Mitchem
as 4:2021cv00612
Plaintiff:
Susan Perry Monroe, Donald Currie and Susan Perry-Monroe
Defendant:
Mark Mitchem
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Mehta v. Morrisey et al
as 1:2020cv00331
Plaintiff:
Rukminesh Mehta
Defendant:
Susan Perry, Patrick Morrisey, Joseph Reeder and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Mehta v. Morrisey et al
as 1:2020cv00342
Defendant:
Puja Shah, Sanjit Shah, Joseph Reeder and others
Plaintiff:
Rukminesh Mehta
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3731
(PC) Love v. Perry
as 2:2020cv00385
Plaintiff:
Angelo M. Love
Defendant:
Susan Perry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
