Browse Cases

Northern District of Illinois

The case titled Braun et al v. Day et al, docket number 23-cv-16856, involves plaintiffs Braun and others filing suit against defendants Day and others. The available information indicates that counsel for one party has appeared pro hac vice, suggesting involvement of out-of-state attorneys. However, specific factual

Central District of California

In the case 2:20-cv-03444 Skye Orthobiologics, LLC et al v. CTM Biomedical, LLC et al, the parties reached a settlement resolving their dispute. The litigation involved claims between Skye Orthobiologics and CTM Biomedical, likely concerning business or contractual issues given the parties' industry focus. The

Northern District of Illinois

In the case of Benjamin v. Debt Freedom Attorneys, PLLC, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant law firm, Debt Freedom Attorneys, PLLC. The case reached a procedural stage where the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

Northern District of Illinois

In the case of Mansoori v. Squires et al, docket number 21-cv-05881, the court issued an order regarding a motion for an extension of time. The motion sought additional time for a party to comply with a procedural requirement or deadline in the litigation. The court's order addresses whether the extension was granted

Northern District of Illinois

In the case of Saffold v. Buffalo Wild Wings et al, the court addressed a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The plaintiff, Saffold, brought claims against Buffalo Wild Wings and potentially other parties, alleging certain legal violations. The court's order on the motion to dismiss evaluated whether the

Central District of California

In the case 8:23-cv-02297, Peter Hildebrandt filed a lawsuit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America. The dispute centers on issues related to the insurance policy held by Hildebrandt, with allegations likely involving denial or mishandling of benefits by UNUM. The case is currently pending, with procedural

Northern District of Illinois

In the case 1:24-cv-03767 MacNeil IP LLC et al v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., the court addressed a motion for leave to file additional documents or pleadings. The order pertains to procedural aspects of the litigation, focusing on whether the plaintiff or defendant may amend or supplement their filings. While

Northern District of Illinois

In the case 1:24-cv-08602 Shenzhen Blue Dream Digital Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Braun GmbH, the parties are engaged in litigation involving a motion for miscellaneous relief. The court issued an order addressing this motion, which pertains to procedural or administrative matters within the case. Specific details

Northern District of Illinois

The case 3:25-cv-50494 White v. Caruana et al involves a dispute between the plaintiff, White, and the defendants, Caruana and others. The docket entry referenced is an order issued by the court, though specific details of the order and the underlying claims are not provided. Without additional information on the

Northern District of Illinois

In the case titled Miller Pedroso v. Jansson et al, docket number 1:25-cv-15144, the court issued an order concerning a motion for attorney representation. The order addresses the request by a party, likely the plaintiff or defendant, seeking court approval to have legal counsel appointed or recognized in the matter.

Northern District of Illinois

In the case 3:25-cv-15822 SAMROCK STABLES, LLC et al v. CLARK et al, the plaintiffs, Samrock Stables, LLC and associated parties, have filed a brief in opposition to a motion presented by the defendants, Clark and others. While specific details of the dispute are not provided, the filing indicates ongoing litigation

Northern District of Illinois

In the case titled USA v. Russ, et al, the court issued a Notice/Order concerning a change of plea and/or sentencing. This indicates that one or more defendants in the criminal proceeding have altered their plea status, potentially from not guilty to guilty, or that the court has scheduled or modified sentencing

Southern District of Florida

Khair v. Postal Center International, Inc., docket 25-cv-62700 in the Southern District of Florida, filed an amendment or correction to pleadings or case documents. The nature of the underlying dispute is not disclosed.

Southern District of Florida

Holland v. State of Florida, docket 06-cv-20182 in the Southern District of Florida, received an extension of time for filing or procedural deadlines. The case involves a civil claim against the state, with no further specifics provided.

Southern District of Florida

USA v. Arcila, docket 08-cr-20369 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a miscellaneous relief filing in a criminal case. The filing likely addresses procedural or administrative matters without revealing substantive charges or issues.

Southern District of Florida

Limonik Produce, Inc. v. IRPM Farm LLC et al, docket 26-cv-60282 in the Southern District of Florida, filed a status report updating the court on case progress and scheduling. The report does not disclose substantive dispute details.

Southern District of Florida

In Salcedo v. Marc Jacobs International, LLC, docket 26-cv-60985 in the Southern District of Florida, the plaintiff served the summons, formally initiating the lawsuit against the defendant. Details of the claims remain undisclosed.

Southern District of Florida

Hodge v. American United Life Insurance Company, docket 25-cv-24655 in the Southern District of Florida, reported a notice of settlement. The parties reached an agreement to resolve the dispute outside of trial, though settlement terms remain confidential.

Southern District of Florida

In Maraist v. Pegasus Builders, Inc., docket 26-cv-80092 in the Southern District of Florida, a notice of withdrawal of motion was filed. This procedural step indicates the moving party has abandoned a previously submitted motion without further substantive updates.

District of Massachusetts

Cuzco Ganzhi et al v. Moniz et al, docket 26-cv-11478 in the District of Massachusetts, recorded a substitution of attorney. This change updates legal representation for a party but does not alter the substantive issues or case trajectory at this point.