-
PAUL v. LAM RESEARCH, et al. 3,412 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
-
USA v. Acct 263226700, et al 2,005 views
Illinois Northern District Court
NigeriaNarcotraffickingMoney LaunderingBola TinubuAsset ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCivil ForfeitureNarcotics
Nigerian President-Elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu was named as the owner of several bank accounts that were used to launder money for a heroin distribution network in Chicago, IL in the early 1990s. The members of the heroin ring were criminally charged in a separate case, Northern District of Illinois Case No. 2:92-cr-00113-RL. For unknown reasons, Tinubu was not. Instead, the U.S. Government seized the contents of the bank accounts based on several different seizure warrants across three different dockets, of which this is one. The other two, from 1992, are in the Southern District of New York and a separate docket in the Northern District of Illinois—both with unknown case numbers since the documents pre-date the federal court's PACER system by so many years. In total, about $2.4 million USD was seized from Tinubu's global bank accounts pursuant to these seizure warrants. While working for Mobil Oil Company in Nigeria, Tinubu used a variety of shell companies to move the money around, including Compass Finance & Investment Co., incorporated in Washington, D.C. Though he was not charged, Tinubu committed at least five federal crimes, according to the IRS Special Agent's affidavit in this case: 1) Money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956); 2) Using funds from unlawful activity (18 U.S.C. § 1957); 3) Bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344);
4) Failure to file tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7203); and 5) Lying to federal agents (18 U.S.C. § 1001). Tinubu was elected to be the next President of Nigeria in February 2023.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 1,036 views
New Jersey District Court
This is a general administrative docket used by the New Jersey District Court to post new complaints. It's not actually a real lawsuit.
-
Zimmerman v. Pier 1. Imports (U.S.), Inc. 512 views
Nevada District Court
-
Maninang v. Randstad Employment Solutions, LP 416 views
California Southern District Court
-
United States v. Bossingham 344 views
Arizona District Court
Kitchen NightmaresTurbodisputeIdentity TheftSocial Security FraudCredit FraudFederal SentencingPlea AgreementAmy's Baking Company
Amanda Patricia Bossingham, also known as "Amy," the proprietor of Amy's Baking Company in Scottsdale, AZ, featured on the popular Fox television show "Kitchen Nightmares," was convicted of bank fraud in 2008 after she falsified a Social Security number on an application for a five-figure bank loan.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Boose v. Musk et al 343 views
Georgia Northern District Court
-
USA v. Vasquez-Bazet 322 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
GREENSPAN v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS et al 322 views
District Of Columbia District Court
Bola TinubuNigeriaFOIAGovernment TransparencyFBIDEAFederal RecordsInvestigative JournalismContempt of Court
Based on the fact that a 1993 civil forfeiture lawsuit became one of the most popular dockets on PlainSite, PlainSite founder Aaron Greenspan sued six United States government agencies over their denial of FOIA requests and subsequent administrative appeals about Nigerian President Bold Tinubu, newly elected as of May 2023 in a highly controversial election.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Kahn v. Anthropic PBC 305 views
California Northern District Court
Artificial IntelligenceClaude Max
-
297 views
Indiana Southern District Court
-
The R&d Credit Company, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company v. Network Optix, Inc. 297 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
Jane Roe 424 E.l., An Individual v. Doe 1, A Public Entity 295 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
Mathis et al v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al 270 views
Florida Southern District Court
Fair Labor Standards ActMinimum WageTip PoolingRestaurant IndustryCollective ActionWage TheftDarden RestaurantsOlive GardenRed Lobster
Current and former servers and bartenders at Darden Restaurants — the parent company of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse, Seasons 52, and Bahama Breeze — filed this nationwide collective action in September 2012 in the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs claimed that Darden illegally required tipped employees to participate in mandatory tip-sharing arrangements and otherwise failed to pay them the federal minimum wage applicable to tipped workers. The proposed class ultimately encompassed more than 216,000 servers and bartenders who worked for Darden brands during the three-year period covered by the claims.
The case generated extensive procedural litigation over conditional certification, the scope of the class list, and discovery. In November 2013, the parties discovered that Darden had inadvertently omitted approximately 1,586 bartenders from the class list — those coded under a "Bartender Tip Share" designation introduced at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Bahama Breeze, and Seasons 52 when those brands rolled out mandatory tip-share programs around 2011. The parties jointly moved to extend the opt-in period to cover these workers. The case proceeded to mediation before a private mediator in June 2014.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Digital 2260 East El Segundo LLC v. Net Data Centers Inc 266 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
DITHRICH v. DHOOGHE 253 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Dismissed
This case was brought before the court because Justin R. Dhooghe found out about an affair between his then fiance Laura V. Rivera and Charles W. Dithrich and wanted information. Charles W. Dithrich wanted to settle out of court for a list of demands including the deletion of all information and pictures Justin R. Dhooghe had in his possession of the affair along with the sum of five thousand dollars in exchange for a non-CLETs restraining order, one that was not on his permanent record. Justin R. Dhooghe eventually refused and the case was brought before the judge and ultimately was dismissed due to insufficient grounds. No restraining order is in effect.
-
Giuffre v. Maxwell 243 views
New York Southern District Court
Sexual PredatorsJeffrey E. EpsteinSEX TRAFFICKINGDefamationJeffrey EpsteinGhislaine MaxwellSealed RecordsCourt TransparencySexual Abuse
Virginia Giuffre sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation after Maxwell alleged that Giuffre's claims about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring, which ensnared Giuffre as a minor, were not true. Thousands of pages of documents regarding Epstein and his associates, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, have been released in this case as a result of the discovery process.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Koninklijke Philips N v. v. YiFang USA, Inc. 242 views
Delaware District Court
-
Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump et al 242 views
California Central District Court
Jeffrey E. EpsteinPresident Donald J. TrumpDonald J. Trump Child Rape AllegationsSexual AssaultJeffrey EpsteinChild ExploitationPro Se LitigationCivil RightsPersonal injury
A woman filing under the pseudonym Katie Johnson, a self-represented plaintiff from Twentynine Palms, California, filed this lawsuit in April 2016 in the Central District of California before Judge Dolly Gee against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that when she was 13 years old in 1994, she was sexually assaulted by both Trump and Epstein at Epstein's Manhattan residence. The complaint was filed pro se.
The case was assigned on April 26, 2016 and initial documents were filed. A renewed judgment/renewal of judgment filing appeared in April 2026, more than a decade later, suggesting residual enforcement activity. The original lawsuit was withdrawn and refiled in New York before being voluntarily dismissed in November 2016.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Particle guidance system 236 views
United States Patent and Trademark Office
-
Streckfuss v. Pizza My Heart Inc. 226 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
-
Akop Terpogosyan 213 views
California Central Bankruptcy Court
-
USA v. Houck 211 views
Missouri Western District Court
-
One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC v. Bravanta, Inc. Fka Bravogifts.com, Inc. et al 203 views
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
-
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 191 views
New Jersey District Court
-
USA v. Urbina-Espinosa 190 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
United States v. Ham 189 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
Moguldom Media Group, LLC v. Okasi 189 views
Georgia Northern District Court
-
Dutcher v. Google LLC d/b/a YouTube, et al. 188 views
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
-
Directv Inc v. Greg A Fischer 187 views
California Central District Court
-
Household Finance Corporation Of California A v. Tom J Beno et al 184 views
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
-
Brand New School LLC v. The Mill Group et al 182 views
New York Southern District Court
-
MARTIN EBERHARD v. ELON MUSK 182 views
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
BillionairesDefamationSlanderTeslaELON MUSKBreach of ContractFounder DisputeWage ClaimElectric Vehicles
Martin Eberhard, co-founder of Tesla Motors and its first CEO, filed this lawsuit against Elon Musk and Tesla Motors in May 2009 in San Mateo County Superior Court. Eberhard alleged that after he was pushed out of Tesla in 2007, Musk and the company launched a coordinated campaign to defame him by publicly blaming him for Tesla's early production delays and financial difficulties, spreading false narratives about his management of the company, and attempting to rewrite the company's origin story to diminish his role as a co-founder. The complaint asserted eleven causes of action including libel, slander, breach of contract, specific performance, unpaid wages, and conversion.
Eberhard had originally co-founded the company with Marc Tarpenning in 2003 and served as CEO through 2007, overseeing the development of the original Tesla Roadster. After his departure — which he alleged was effectively a forced ouster — Musk had assumed a more prominent public role and, Eberhard claimed, began making statements that falsely cast Eberhard as responsible for the company's technical and financial problems.
The parties reached a confidential settlement in September 2009, less than four months after the complaint was filed. As part of the resolution, both sides agreed to treat each other with respect and to acknowledge each other's contributions to Tesla's founding.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
BRAGGS, et al. v. BEI CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. 182 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
-
Greenspan v. Random House, Inc. et al 180 views
Massachusetts District Court
Fake Non-Fiction BooksFalse AdvertisingThe Social Network (2010 Movie)Defamation By OmissionAaron SorkinConsumer ReviewsFake AccountsFacebook OriginsHarvard UniversityCopyright InfringementDefamationFacebookThe Social NetworkHollywoodUnfair CompetitionHarvard
Aaron Greenspan, creator of the 2003 predecessor to The Facebook at Harvard University, sued popular author Benjamin Mezrich, his publisher Random House, and Columbia Pictures for copyright infringement, defamation and false advertising due to the statements made by Mezrich in and about his book "The Accidental Billionaires." Mezrich's book, which cites Greenspan's as a source, has been marketed as supposed non-fiction, even though the story is full of inconsistencies and outright falsifications, many of which Mezrich admits to. Mezrich notably omitted Greenspan's role in the creation of the web site, and helped to prop up Mark Zuckerberg as a "genius" in his book, leading to the eventual motion picture "The Social Network," and contributing to the frenzy surrounding Facebook's problematic IPO.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Dymtrow v. Swift et al 176 views
New York Southern District Court
Pop StarsMusic IndustryChild StarsTalent ManagementBreach of ContractEntertainment LawTaylor Swift
Pop star Taylor Swift's early manager Daniel Dymtrow sued the Swift family after his services were terminated just before a meeting with Sony ATV that he alleges he helped to arrange, cutting him out of payments. He also sued Swift's new record label, Big Machine Records, and its founder, Scott Borchetta.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Emmanuel Macron v. Candace Owens, et al. 175 views
Superior Court of Delaware
FranceSocial Media
-
NVE Experience Agency, LLC et al v. Pension Systems Corporation et al 173 views
California Central District Court
-
USA v. Zapata 169 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
USA v. Harris 169 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
USA v. Santana-Rosales 168 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
Yaser A. Albahri, Petitioner v. Florida 167 views
Supreme Court of the United States
-
In the Matter of the Accusation Against: TESLA INC., dba TESLA MOTORS INC., a Vehicle Manufacturer 165 views
California Department of Motor Vehicles
Tesla AutopilotTesla Full Self-Driving
-
Doe v. Trump et al 163 views
New York Southern District Court
Jeffrey E. EpsteinSexual AssaultJeffrey EpsteinSEX TRAFFICKINGChild Sexual AbuseDefamation
A woman proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe filed this lawsuit in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by both men at a series of parties hosted by Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse in 1994, when the plaintiff was 13 years old. The complaint alleged rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and defamation. It described a pattern of abuse over multiple encounters that the plaintiff alleged was facilitated by an unnamed woman who recruited her with promises of money and modeling work.
The case attracted significant media attention given the identities of the defendants and the gravity of the allegations. A companion affidavit filed with the complaint included similar allegations from a second anonymous woman who claimed to have witnessed some of the events. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case in November 2016, with her attorney citing fear for her safety and the psychological toll of the publicity as the reasons for withdrawal. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of refiling, though no subsequent federal action was recorded.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. Gerea, Paul Haidu 156 views
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
-
LeDoux v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles L L C 152 views
Louisiana Western District Court
-
Sinora Freeland v. Momentum For Mental Health, a California corporation 152 views
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
-
Gupta v. Yash Technologies 150 views
Illinois Central District Court
-
Wyer v. Tesla, Inc. et al. 150 views
California Court of Appeal
Tesla Worker RightsEmployment DiscriminationPersonal injuryAppellateTeslaAppeal
The heart of my case is that Tesla, Inc. illegally terminated me in
violation of the FEHA and well-established public policy.
More specifically, Tesla illegally fired me for the following reasons:
1) I have a disability (ASD and hypertension that required
emergency care).
2) I requested accommodations and unilaterally attempted to engage
in a good faith interactive process and was denied.
3) I am an older person. I was almost 62 years old when I was
illegally fired. I was replaced immediately (3-days-later) by a
software engineer who was approximately half my age.
Coworkers made comments about my age and indicated that I
was an “old man.”
4) I complained that Rollins and my co-workers were engaging in
sexual harassment and offensive communications referring to
their penis sizes on Tesla’s communications network. Also,
sexual videos of women twerking were placed in the team’s chat
that displayed women’s breasts. Reporting was required by
Tesla’s own Sexual Harassment and Bullying Training Program.
5) I was forced to open a workers’ compensation case for injuries I
sustained as a result of work. I was awarded $45,000 for this
claim.
6) Moreover, I was fired because I engaged in whistleblowing
regarding sexual harassment, sabotage, and other security issues.
Whistleblowing is a protected activity.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Fileff v. General Motors LLC 148 views
New York Southern District Court
-
USA v. O'Donovan 148 views
California Central District Court
-
Binary Semantics Limited v. Minitab 145 views
Pennsylvania Middle District Court
-
Pampena v. Musk 144 views
California Northern District Court
TwitterFake Accounts
-
In Re: Dylan Palmer 143 views
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
-
United States of America et al v. Durrani et al 140 views
Ohio Southern District Court
Forged Declarations
-
USA v. Coates 135 views
New York Southern District Court
-
The Haven Detox Fort Pierce, LLC v. City of Fort Pierce 135 views
Florida Southern District Court
-
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 133 views
New Jersey District Court
-
Vieira v. One Workplace L. Ferrari LLC (Class Action) 131 views
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
-
Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. 130 views
New York Southern District Court
DrakeCelebritiesRap Artists
-
Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC 129 views
California Northern District Court
Artificial IntelligenceMass Corporate Book TheftFair Use Doctrine
-
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC et al v. Non Typical, Inc. 128 views
Texas Eastern District Court
-
United States v. CLARK 126 views
District Of Columbia District Court
-
Samuelson v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company 126 views
Florida Middle District Court
-
Securities And Exchange Commission v. Shafi et al 126 views
California Northern District Court
Silicon Valley
-
263BE83 v. Baucum et al 125 views
Texas Northern District Court
-
Optical Fiber Unit Installation Apparatus Including A Unit For Preventing Backward Flowing Of Fluid 124 views
United States Patent and Trademark Office
-
The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust et al v. Capital One, N.A. 123 views
Florida Southern District Court
President Donald J. Trump
-
Perfect Plastic v. CPI Card Grp, et al 122 views
Illinois Northern District Court
-
Brown v. 93 NYRPT, LLC 122 views
New York Western District Court
-
Jacqueline L Domac v. Edward Furlong 121 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
Eleazar Lopez v. Fresenius USA, Inc. et al 120 views
California Central District Court
-
DBRAND INC. v. Casetagram Limited d/b/a Casetify 120 views
Illinois Northern District Court
-
ALMOUSA v. TELSA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 118 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Tesla Worker Rights
-
United States v. Arencibia 117 views
Florida Southern District Court
-
Sega Of America, Inc. v. Dustin Hensley 117 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
United States of America v. May 116 views
Michigan Eastern District Court
-
X.AI LLC v. Ellison 116 views
Minnesota District Court
PornographyNudityArtificial Intelligence
-
Claimant ID 100271726 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al 113 views
Louisiana Eastern District Court
-
USA v. Kincaid 112 views
Massachusetts District Court
-
Scott Haskins v. Karen Francis et al 112 views
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
-
EB IP Holdings LLC et al v. Pro-Driver Leasing Systems, Inc. et al 111 views
Texas Southern District Court
-
Vyskocil v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al 110 views
California Central District Court
-
Fenix International Limited dba OnlyFans 4th Floor, Imperial House, 8 Kean Street London, England WC2B 4AS United Kingdom 110 views
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
-
USA v. Vilneus 110 views
Rhode Island District Court
Criminal ConspiracyOrganized CrimeRelated Cases
Federal prosecutors in the District of Rhode Island charged Irvin Vilneus and four co-defendants — Junior Mertile, Tony Mertile, James Legerme, and Allen Bien-Aime — in a series of related criminal cases filed in late 2020. A notice of related case filed in November 2020 formally linked the five proceedings, indicating the defendants were charged in connection with a common scheme or organization. The cases proceeded together before the court, which is common in prosecutions involving multiple members of an alleged criminal enterprise or conspiracy. The related-case structure suggested the defendants were charged with overlapping or coordinated criminal conduct in Rhode Island.
AI case summary available — Subscribe to Pro to view.
-
Jones et al v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP et al 108 views
Kentucky Western District Court
-
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sherrifs et al v. County of Los Angeles et al 107 views
California Central District Court
-
10/12/2010 Govaerts, Lucien vs Suntec Industries Inc 107 views
Court of Chancery of Delaware
-
Vogel v. 9429 Walnut Cake, LLC et al 107 views
California Central District Court
-
Baker et al v. Farmers Group Incorporated et al 107 views
Arizona District Court
-
United States v. Irizarry 106 views
New York Southern District Court
-
Soniya Soniya v. United Valet Parking, Inc, et al. 104 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
Gary B Schaeffer 102 views
New York Southern Bankruptcy Court
-
Coultrip et al v. Pfizer, Inc 102 views
New York Southern District Court
-
Tesla Inc. v. EVject, Inc. 102 views
California Northern District Court
-
Jason J. Emer, Md, Professional Corporation, A California Corporation v. Soma Surgery Center, Inc., A California Corporation, et al. 102 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
ESTATE OF: ARRON WARD STANLEY SR. 102 views
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
-
United States of America v. David Champion 101 views
California Central District Court
-
The Hartford Gold Group, LLC v. Brandon Anthony Thor, et al. 101 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
-
Basil M Hantash v. Blue Cross Of California Dba Anthem Blue Cross, et al. 100 views
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles