Browse Cases

Northern District of Illinois

The Northern District of Illinois issued a protective order in Maddox v. Hollister Incorporated. The order restricts disclosure or use of confidential information during discovery in this civil dispute.

Northern District of Illinois

In Bankers Life v. American Senior Benefits, the Northern District of Illinois sealed certain documents. This action likely protects sensitive business information or privacy interests in this civil case.

Northern District of Illinois

The Northern District of Illinois granted an extension of time in Applied Biologics LLC v. Elizalde Healthcare. The case involves ongoing pretrial activity in this civil lawsuit, allowing additional time for procedural or substantive filings.

Western District of Washington

CEMCO LLC filed a civil lawsuit against KPSI Innovations and others in the Western District of Washington. The parties submitted a joint status report, signaling cooperation in managing the case schedule and ongoing procedural activity.

Northern District of Illinois

Donald v. Bennett et al involves a motion for reconsideration filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The motion asks the court to review and possibly alter a prior ruling, focusing on potential legal errors or new evidence in this civil dispute.

Northern District of Illinois

In Ferrari Financial Services v. Guerra, the Northern District of Illinois ordered the parties to submit a joint scheduling report. This procedural step sets timelines for discovery, motions, and trial preparation in this civil case, which remains in its early stages.

Northern District of Illinois

The Northern District of Illinois allowed service by publication in the criminal case USA v. Bianchi, docket 25-cr-00779. This step enables the case to proceed despite the defendant being unlocatable for standard service of process.

Northern District of Illinois

In Gonzalez v. Alberto F Fontela TRS et al, the Northern District of Illinois confirmed that defendants have been formally served as indicated by the return of summons and affidavit. The case is in its early procedural stage with no further details on claims or defenses.

Northern District of Illinois

The Northern District of Illinois addressed a motion to modify the release conditions of defendant Jernigan in the criminal case USA v. Jernigan, docket number 26-cr-00129. The court's ruling will affect the defendant's liberty and the terms under which they remain out of custody pending trial.

Southern District of New York

In the case titled Bartolini v. Town of Yorktown et al, docket number 25-cv-08508, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a consent to receive electronic service. The case involves the Town of Yorktown and possibly other defendants, although specific claims or factual details are not provided. The filing

Southern District of New York

In the case of Alexander Gomez v. LZ77 LLC et al, the court issued an order regarding a motion for an extension of time to answer the complaint. The motion sought additional time for the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's allegations. The court's order addresses procedural scheduling and ensures that the

Southern District of New York

The case 1:20-cv-08065 Bizelia et al v. Clinton Towers Management involves plaintiffs Bizelia and others bringing claims against Clinton Towers Management. While specific details of the dispute are not provided, the docket includes a letter filed in the case, indicating ongoing communications or procedural matters

Southern District of New York

In the case of Thomas v. Doubleday Publishing et al, docket number 25-cv-06454, the plaintiff Thomas has brought a legal action against Doubleday Publishing and other defendants. The case involves a memorandum endorsement issued by the court, indicating judicial consideration of motions or procedural matters. Specific

Southern District of New York

In the case 1:23-cv-07331 Eletson Holdings Inc. et al v. Levona Holdings Ltd., the parties are engaged in a civil dispute, as indicated by the docket number and case title. The case involves Eletson Holdings Inc. and other plaintiffs bringing claims against Levona Holdings Ltd. The available document is an order

Southern District of New York

In the case Filardi v. Mid America Pet Food LLC, docket number 23-cv-11170, the plaintiff has initiated litigation against Mid America Pet Food LLC. The case involves correspondence filed with the court, as indicated by a letter submitted in the docket. Specific details about the claims or procedural posture are not

Southern District of New York

The case 1:17-cv-09375 Hernandez v. BMNY Contracting Corp. et al involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Hernandez, and the defendant, BMNY Contracting Corp., along with other parties. The docket includes a letter filed in the case, indicating ongoing communication or procedural matters before the court. Specific

Central District of California

In the case Alger v. Ashford CM Partners LP et al, docket number 24-cv-06482, the plaintiff Alger has filed an objection or opposition related to a motion in the ongoing litigation. The specific details of the motion or the underlying dispute are not provided, but the filing indicates active procedural engagement by

Central District of California

The case titled Frank Dominguez v. Dean Jones et al, docket number 25-cv-09422, is currently in the early stages as indicated by the issuance of a scheduling notice. The notice likely outlines the procedural timeline for the case, including deadlines for motions, discovery, and other pretrial activities. No

Central District of California

In the case United States of America v. Bytedance Ltd. et al, the U.S. government has initiated legal proceedings against Bytedance Ltd. and associated parties. The case involves the government's efforts to address concerns related to Bytedance's business practices and operations within the United States. Specific

Central District of California

In the case 2:25-cv-11350 Lindsey Schantz v. General Motors LLC et al, the plaintiff Lindsey Schantz initiated legal action against General Motors LLC and potentially other defendants. The docket reflects a procedural development involving a letter of transmittal concerning the remand of the case to Superior Court