Cases 1 - 10 of 32
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04194
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Stourbridge Investments LLC v. Robert A. Chapek et al
as 1:2023cv00920
Plaintiff:
Stourbridge Investments LLC
Defendant:
Robert A. Chapek, Christine M. McCarthy, Kareem Daniel and others
Nominal Defendant:
The Walt Disney Company
In Re: Zuru LLC et al
as 1:2022mc00303
Petitioner:
Zuru LLC and Zuru Inc.
Respondent:
A&E Television Networks, LLC, Fox Corporation, Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. and others
CASTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2021cv03827
Plaintiff:
CHARLES CASTON
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEPHEN SCHWARZMAN, JONATHAN GRAY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALLAH v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY et al
as 2:2021cv00735
Defendant:
NYDIA HAN, WPVI-TV, CHERYL METTENDORF and others
Plaintiff:
MINISTER ALIF ALLAH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv04639
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Pebble Tide LLC v. The Walt Disney Company
as 1:2019cv01176
Defendant:
The Walt Disney Company
Plaintiff:
Pebble Tide LLC
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Knecht et al v. JAKKS Pacific et al
as 4:2017cv02267
Plaintiff:
Troy Knecht and Shelly Knecht
Defendant:
JAKKS Pacific , JAKKS Sales Corporation , Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
YOCOM v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC. et al
as 2:2017cv02422
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY YOCOM
Defendant:
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BARTH, et al. v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al
as 2:2016cv02140
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL BARTH and MAUREEN BARTH
Defendant:
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
