Cases 1 - 10 of 90
Ou-Young v. Busby, et al.
as 25-800
Plaintiff:
KUANG-BAO OU-YOUNG
Defendant:
MARK B. BUSBY, Clerk of U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL and others
Austin v. ABC Legal Services, LLC, et al.
as 25-734
Plaintiff:
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN
Defendant:
ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, ALEX G. TSE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, SUSAN ILLSTON, DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2025cv00789
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers et al
as 4:2025cv00497
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Claudia Wilken and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Austin v. Kia Corporation, et al.
as 25-26
Defendant:
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, SUSAN ILLSTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EPIQ GLOBAL and others
Plaintiff:
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN
Austin v. Kemper Corporation, et al.
as 24-7860
Defendant:
CYNTHIA HERNANDEZ, EDWARD J. DAVILLA, RICHARD SEEBORG, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Plaintiff:
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN
Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers et al
as 4:2024cv08856
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers and Jacquelyn Lovrin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Austin v. ABC Legal Services, LLC, et al.
as 24-7383
Defendant:
CHARLES R. BREYER, DISTRICT JUDGE, EDWARD M. CHEN, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAXINE M. CHESNEY, DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Plaintiff:
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN
Ou-Young v. Busby et al
as 3:2024cv08545
Defendant:
Mark B. Busby, Todd H. Master, Judicial Council of California and others
Plaintiff:
Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Austin v. Georgetown University, et al.
as 24-6943
Plaintiff:
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN
Defendant:
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY and YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
