Cases 1 - 10 of 362
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00797
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02200
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00689
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv01200
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
United States of America v. Le
as 24-1079
Defendant:
HOANG XUAN LE, Big Bro, Blue and others
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00414
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Chow v. Defendant 1 et al
as 2:2024cv00480
Defendant:
Defendant 1, Kai Xuan Wang, John Does 1-20 and others
Plaintiff:
Virginia S. Chow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2024cv01422
Plaintiff:
Christian Dior Couture, S.A.
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, A12UHZGL4TLP68, A22EYFDYEZHQCH and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Ramon DAndrea Dent v. 2100 W 96th St, Los Angeles, CA Parcel 6057007056 et al
as 2:2024cv01150
Petitioner:
Ramon DAndrea Dent
Respondent:
2100 W 96th St, Los Angeles, CA Parcel 6057007056, California TD Specialists, CDEF Investment LLC with Wanyao Xuan, Guojun Xuan and others
Defendant:
PC Funding Incorporated doing business as PC Funding Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
