Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Mosley v. Jennings et al
as 5:2024cv00103
Plaintiff:
Walter Mosley
Defendant:
Debra Jennings, Christi Greenwalt, John Clum and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Danielle Victor v. Southwest Wine and Spirits, LLC, et al
as 23-55256
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIELLE VICTOR
Defendant / Appellee:
SOUTHWEST WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, WALLYS AUCTION HOUSE, LLC, a California limited liability company, MEL-JEN, a California limited liability company and others
Danielle Victor v. Southwest Wine and Spirits, LLC et al
as 2:2023cv00690
Plaintiff:
Danielle Victor
Defendant:
Southwest Wine and Spirits, LLC, Wallys Auction House, LLC, Mel-Jen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
MOSLEY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv45060
Plaintiff:
WALTER MOSLEY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MOSLEY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2020cv09166
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
PAUL WALTER MOSLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
In re: Kavon Mosley
as 17-12385
Petitioner:
In re: KAVON WALTER MOSLEY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SKWS Enterprises, Inc. v. Amber Levonchuck et al
as 2:2017cv03327
Defendant:
Amber Levonchuck, Walter Mosley, Does 1-20, inclusive and others
Plaintiff:
SKWS Enterprises, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
In re: Kavon Mosley
as 16-13272
Petitioner:
In re: KAVON WALTER MOSLEY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In re: Kavon Mosley
as 16-12475
Petitioner:
In re: KAVON WALTER MOSLEY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Kavon Mosley v. Michael Sepanek
as 13-5421
Petitioner - Appellant:
KAVON WALTER MOSLEY
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL SEPANEK
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.
