Browse Cases

• Filed

Shaw sued Scattergood and additional defendants in case 1:25-cv-06678. The only docket activity reflected in the source materials is a miscellaneous notice filing. No claim details, court identity, or substantive rulings are available. The case appears to be in early stages.

• Filed

Wendy Mosqueda sued Werner Co. and additional defendants in case 2:25-cv-08593. The case was removed to federal court and has since been remanded back to state court. The remand suggests the federal court found removal improper — likely due to a defect in diversity jurisdiction or a procedural bar. No state court

• Filed

Plaintiff Moody sued Starbucks Corporation in a case docketed as 1:25-cv-08739. The complaint alleges negligence and breach of contract arising from an unspecified incident at or involving a Starbucks location. The source materials do not identify the incident, the damages sought, or the court. The case appears to be

• Filed

This entry shares docket number 1:25-cv-10384 with case 12955 — the same 230 CNC, LLC v. Frank M. DeBono Construction Corporation matter. The record here references a duplicate protective order filing, which likely reflects a clerical re-filing or a procedural correction rather than a substantively new court order. No

• Filed

230 CNC, LLC has sued Frank M. DeBono Construction Corporation in federal court under docket 1:25-cv-10384. The record reflects a protective order — a court-issued directive typically used to shield trade secrets, proprietary business information, or sensitive financial data from public disclosure during discovery.

• Filed

Goldburg has filed suit against Wex Inc. and other defendants in federal court under docket 2:26-cv-04081. The record reflects a certificate of interested parties, a standard early filing that identifies entities with a financial stake in the outcome — often required by local rules to flag potential judicial

• Filed

McCann has filed suit against BIP Ventures, L.P. and additional defendants in federal court under docket 1:26-cv-03138. The plaintiff has requested issuance of a summons, placing the case in its earliest procedural stage — the complaint has been filed but defendants have not yet been served. No substantive claims are

• Filed

Jose Orlando Casco Alas has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of Desert View Annex and other respondents in federal court under docket 5:26-cv-01897. A § 2241 petition is a federal habeas corpus challenge, typically used by a detained person to contest the legality of their confinement —

• Filed

This entry shares docket number 1:25-cv-10524 with case 12949 — the same Songun v. Pier Sixty LLC matter. The record here references a notice related to a scheduling order, a routine procedural step that sets deadlines for discovery, motions, and trial. The scheduling order notice does not alter the substantive

• Filed

Songun has filed suit against Pier Sixty LLC and other defendants in federal court under docket 1:25-cv-10524. Pier Sixty is a well-known New York City event venue, and employment or wage-related claims are common in litigation against hospitality employers of this type — but the current record does not specify the

• Filed

Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC has sued Besa Restoration, LLC and additional defendants in federal court under docket 1:26-cv-02533. A summons has been returned executed, meaning at least one defendant has been formally served and the litigation is moving past its initial filing stage. The nature of the claim is not

• Filed

This entry is a duplicate of case 12945, sharing the same docket number, 1:24-cv-02877, and the same parties: Wilcox et al. versus Local 1-2, Utility Workers Union of America. The record contains no additional facts beyond those reflected in the prior entry. No independent analysis is possible without a distinct

• Filed

Wilcox and other plaintiffs have sued Local 1-2 of the Utility Workers Union of America in federal court under docket 1:24-cv-02877. The available record does not detail the specific claims, but union-member disputes of this type typically involve allegations of breach of the duty of fair representation, contract

• Filed

This record is a second filing in Norris v. North Fork Restaurant Group LLC et al, docket 25-cv-00387, also involving an Order to Show Cause. The duplication suggests either a second order was issued or the same order appears in multiple docket entries. No additional substantive detail distinguishes this filing from

• Filed

Norris filed suit against North Fork Restaurant Group LLC and co-defendants in docket 25-cv-00387. The court issued an Order to Show Cause, a procedural mechanism typically used to compel a party to explain why a particular action should not be taken. The specific subject of the Order to Show Cause — whether directed

• Filed

Brandon James filed suit against Bosley, Inc. in docket 26-cv-02278. The only identified filing is a Corporate Disclosure Statement filed under 15 U.S.C. Section 78a, a standard early-stage procedural requirement. The disclosure statement does not reveal the substance of James's claims. The court has not been

• Filed

Joel Soileau filed suit against Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) in docket 24-cv-06397. The court has not been identified in available filings, and the nature of Soileau's claims has not been specified. No substantive filings describing the claims or defenses are available. The case is in early stages or

• Filed

Jerie Petrosian et al filed suit against State National Insurance Company et al in docket 24-cv-06963. The parties reached a settlement resolving the dispute, with terms and conditions agreed upon by both sides. The available summary for this case_id incorrectly references Smith v. Yoto Inc. The settlement description

• Filed

The available summary for case_id 12934, filed under docket 25-cv-00295 (Smith et al v. Yoto Inc.), describes a settlement in a different case — Petrosian et al v. State National Insurance Company et al, docket 24-cv-06963. The filing appears to be misattributed. No reliable substantive information about Smith v. Yoto

• Filed

Smith et al filed suit against Yoto Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, docket 25-cv-00295. The court issued a memorandum and opinion addressing the legal issues raised by both parties. The opinion reflects that the court has reached a substantive ruling on at least some of the