Cases 1 - 10 of 100
WARNER IV v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
as 2:2026cv07134
Plaintiff:
FRANCIS J. WARNER IV
Defendant:
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv07951
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
Piuggi v. Good For You Productions LLC
as 26-2531
Plaintiff:
JACK PIUGGI
Defendant:
GOOD FOR YOU PRODUCTIONS LLC, GRAND STREET MEDIA INC., WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC. and others
Elkharwily v. City of Spokane et al
as 2:2026cv00396
Plaintiff:
Alaa Elkharwily
Defendant:
City of Spokane, Timothy Szambelan, Nadine Woodward and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Forbes v. Stafford County School Board, et al.
as 1:2026cv02980
Plaintiff:
Ashley A. Forbes
Defendant:
Stafford County School Board and Elizabeth Warner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Dossey v. Griffis
as 26-50776
Plaintiff:
Christopher Royce Dossey
Defendant:
Sheriff Mike Griffis, FNU McKinney, FNU Cox, Lieutenant and others
Zimmerman v. Warner
as 26-5777
Petitioner:
KENNETH PAUL ZIMMERMAN
Respondent:
JACK WARNER, SUPERINTENDENT
Warner v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
as 1:2026cv10680
Plaintiff:
Cherryl Warner
Defendant:
AFAM Concept, Inc. d/b/a JF Labs, Inc., Avlon Industries, Beauty Bell Enterprises LLC f/k/a/ House of Cheatham, Inc. and others
:
Service List
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Lambert v. Warner
as 2:2026cv03136
Petitioner:
Joshua Lambert
Respondent:
Jack Warner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Warner v. CBA Springfield, LLC
as 6:2026cv03541
Plaintiff:
Mark S. Warner
Defendant:
CBA Springfield, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0216 Failure to Pay Earned Compensation
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.
