Browse Cases

District of New Jersey

Apex Lab Solutions sued Chemisys Laboratories in the District of New Jersey. The court granted a 60-day administrative termination, temporarily suspending case activity. This pause often allows for settlement talks or compliance with procedural requirements. The substantive dispute remains unspecified.

District of New Jersey

Acrotech Biopharma and others sued Gland Pharma Limited in the District of New Jersey. The court issued an order on a magistrate judge motion, indicating procedural developments. Specific claims or legal issues remain undisclosed.

Southern District of New York

Martin Nicholas John Trott and others sued Deutsche Bank AG in the Southern District of New York. The case lacks detailed public information on the nature of the dispute or claims. The litigation remains at an early or undisclosed stage.

District of New Jersey

Johnson sued Walmart Stores East, LP in the District of New Jersey. The court issued an order addressing procedural or substantive matters. The case likely involves claims related to employment, premises liability, or consumer issues against the retail corporation.

Southern District of New York

National Retirement Fund sued Domestic Linen Control Group in the Southern District of New York over a contract dispute. The court issued a memorandum and opinion addressing substantive motions, likely impacting liability or damages. The dispute centers on contractual or fiduciary obligations between the parties.

District of New Jersey

Dey sued Innodata, Inc. in the District of New Jersey in a civil matter with limited publicly available information. The case appears to involve business or contractual issues given the corporate parties. There has been little docket activity to clarify the dispute's nature or stage.

District of New Jersey

The District of New Jersey court granted pro hac vice status to an out-of-state attorney in Davis v. DC Department of Corrections. This procedural order allows the attorney to represent plaintiffs in ongoing litigation against correctional authorities. The case remains active with claims against the Department of

District of New Jersey

Hoefler brought claims against American Airlines in the District of New Jersey. Recent court activity involves adding and removing parties, which affects the litigation's scope. These changes aim to clarify who is involved and the issues at stake.

District of New Jersey

Fedorko and others filed a stipulated motion against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in the District of New Jersey. The joint motion suggests some procedural or substantive agreement between the parties. The underlying dispute and claims remain unspecified in the public record.

Northern District of Illinois

Cranston sued Trans Union LLC in the Northern District of Illinois over alleged credit reporting violations. The case was removed from state court to federal court, indicating claims likely involve federal consumer protection laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff challenges Trans Union's credit

District of New Jersey

The District of New Jersey entered a text order in Green v. Operating Engineers Local 825, docket number 23-cv-04286. The case likely involves labor or employment issues given the defendant's identity as a union local. No substantive details about the order or dispute were provided.

District of New Jersey

OMI Refractories, LLC v. Hankin Environmental Systems, Inc., docket number 23-cv-18489, involved filing of a stipulation and order in the District of New Jersey. The stipulation likely reflects an agreement between parties on procedural or substantive matters, potentially streamlining litigation. Specific dispute

District of New Jersey

A proposed order was submitted in Mandler et al v. Garipalli et al, docket number 25-cv-17633, in the District of New Jersey. The filing reflects ongoing procedural activity, possibly related to motions or case management. The substantive issues underlying the proposed order remain undisclosed.

District of New Jersey

The District of New Jersey issued an order to show cause in Williams et al v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et al, docket number 25-cv-11843. The court demanded explanation or justification from a party, indicating procedural or substantive issues requiring judicial review. This may relate to compliance, discovery, or other

District of New Jersey

In Brava Capital Management Ltd. v. Champion Foods, Inc., docket number 25-cv-18290, the District of New Jersey recorded a notice of appearance. Counsel formally entered the case, marking a procedural update without substantive developments disclosed.

District of New Jersey

An order to show cause was issued in Bright v. Actavis, LLC, docket number 25-cv-18059, by the District of New Jersey. The court directed a party to justify or explain certain conduct or omissions. This step often precedes rulings on motions or potential sanctions in the civil litigation.

District of New Jersey

The District of New Jersey held a telephone conference in Gilmore v. City of Paterson, docket number 20-cv-09316. The conference likely addressed procedural or case management issues. No substantive claims or rulings were disclosed in the record.

District of New Jersey

A redacted document was filed in George Harms Construction Co. v. Gateway Development Commission, docket number 25-cv-17679, in the District of New Jersey. The filing likely contains sensitive or confidential information shielded from public view. The case remains a civil dispute with limited publicly available

District of New Jersey

In USA v. Goris-Castellano, docket number 17-cr-00307, the District of New Jersey issued an order on a motion addressing the retroactive application of Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The amendment concerns recalculations of criminal history scores, potentially affecting the defendant's

District of New Jersey

The District of New Jersey admitted pro hac vice counsel in United States v. Apple Inc., docket number 24-cv-04055. This allows an out-of-state attorney to participate in the criminal litigation against Apple Inc. The admission reflects procedural developments in the ongoing case.