Cases 1 - 10 of 1,282
BAOXUN v. THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A
as 1:2024cv04104
Plaintiff:
ZHU BAOXUN
Defendant:
THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Xiangyuan Zhu v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
as 24-1131
Petitioner:
Xiangyuan Zhu
Respondent:
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03507
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 8:2024cv00555
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Shaya v. Nofs et al
as 2:2024cv10670
Plaintiff:
Stephen B. Shaya
Defendant:
Kylie Nofs, Zhu Shicai, Luo Yanbing and others
Intervenor:
Alt 5 Sigma Canada, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Conversion
Chen et al v. Chen et al
as 1:2024cv03349
Plaintiff:
Ting Chen and Xin Yang
Defendant:
Yu Chen, Yurong Hu, A Fei and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01789
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03399
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 2:2024cv02402
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv02681
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
