Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Palani Karupaiyan, et al v. L. Naganda, et al
as 22-2066
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PALANI KARUPAIYAN
Plaintiff / Appellee:
P. P. and R. P.
Defendant / Appellee:
L. NAGANDA, individually and in his official capacity as Owner of Naga Law Firm, NAGA LAW FIRM, J. RAMYA and others
Defendant:
JUDGE BARRY T. ALBIN, individually and in her official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ, JUDGE ATLANTIC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP AND MIDDLESEX MANAGEMENT, individually and in her official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ, JUDGE CRAIG CORSON, individually and in her official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ and others
Palani Karupaiyan, et al v. L. Naganda, et al
as 21-2560
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PALANI KARUPAIYAN
Plaintiff / Appellee:
P. P. and R. P.
Defendant / Appellee:
L. NAGANDA, individually and in his official capacity as Owner of Naga Law Firm, NAGA LAW FIRM, J. RAMYA and others
Defendant / Appellant:
JUSTICE STUART RABNER, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of Supreme Court of NJ
Defendant:
ALLISON E. ACCURSO, BARRY T. ALBIN, CRAIG CORSON and others
KACHWALLA et al v. TOWNSHIP OF EDISON et al
as 2:2021cv13944
Plaintiff:
Mustufa T Kachwalla, Debra Kachwalla, Cassidy Kachwalla and others
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, EDISON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Detective Daniel Hansson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Palani Karupaiyan, et al v. L. Naganda, et al
as 21-1813
Defendant / Appellee:
ATLANTIC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP AND MIDDLESEX MANAGEMENT, JUSTICE WALTER F. TIMPONE, individually and in his official capacity as Justice of Supreme Court of N, JUDGE JERALD COUNCIL, individually and in his official capacity as Judges of the Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PALANI KARUPAIYAN
Plaintiff:
P. P. and R. P.
Defendant:
JUDGE ALLISON E. ACCURSO, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ, JUDGE JOSEPH L. YANNOTTI, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ, JUDGE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of Appellate Division of NJ and others
MOSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 3:2020cv18885
Defendant:
ANDREW CAREY, TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, Police Officer Charles Zundel and others
Plaintiff:
Noah Mosley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP v. 11.549 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE BOROUGH OF METUCHEN AND THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON et al
as 2:2020cv18771
Defendant:
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, JANE AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 50, ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 50 and others
Plaintiff:
TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
CAREONE AT BIRCHWOOD, LLC et al v. TOWNSHIP OF EDISON et al
as 2:2020cv07976
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF EDISON and TOWNSHIP OF EDISON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Plaintiff:
1330 INMAN AVENUE, LLC, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 and CAREONE AT BIRCHWOOD, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
JEFFERSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2020cv07148
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, KEITHA B JEFFERSON and others
Plaintiff:
JEFFERSON AL-MALIK and AL-MALIK JEFFERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
PEMBERTON v. PAPPAS et al
as 2:2020cv04411
Defendant:
Chief of Police Thomas Bryan and Township of Edison
Plaintiff:
Crista Pemberton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC v. 0.391 ACRES OF LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al
as 2:2014cv05432
Plaintiff:
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
Defendant:
0.391 ACRES OF LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, MAY STREET MEDICAL, L.L.C. , CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY and others
Cross_claimant:
CMFG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, mortgage and CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY
Cross_defendant:
MAY STREET MEDICAL, L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
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.
