Recently Popular Cases

1. PAUL v. LAM RESEARCH, et al. 3,405 views
   Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

2. USA v. Acct 263226700, et al 1,980 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.

3. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 1,039 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.

4. Zimmerman v. Pier 1. Imports (U.S.), Inc. 584 views
   Nevada District Court

5. Maninang v. Randstad Employment Solutions, LP 415 views
   California Southern District Court

6. Boose v. Musk et al 396 views
   Georgia Northern District Court

7. United States v. Bossingham 342 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.

8. USA v. Vasquez-Bazet 321 views
   Texas Southern District Court

9. GREENSPAN v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS et al 316 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.

10. Jane Roe 424 E.l., An Individual v. Doe 1, A Public Entity 309 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

11. Kahn v. Anthropic PBC 304 views
    California Northern District Court

    Artificial IntelligenceClaude Max

12. 297 views
    Indiana Southern District Court

13. 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

14. Mathis et al v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al 271 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.

15. DITHRICH v. DHOOGHE 264 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.

16. Koninklijke Philips N v. v. YiFang USA, Inc. 242 views
    Delaware District Court

17. Digital 2260 East El Segundo LLC v. Net Data Centers Inc 241 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

18. Particle guidance system 235 views
    United States Patent and Trademark Office

19. Giuffre v. Maxwell 234 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.

20. Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump et al 225 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.

21. Streckfuss v. Pizza My Heart Inc. 225 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

22. USA v. Houck 212 views
    Missouri Western District Court

23. Akop Terpogosyan 212 views
    California Central Bankruptcy Court

24. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 204 views
    New Jersey District Court

25. One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC v. Bravanta, Inc. Fka Bravogifts.com, Inc. et al 203 views
    Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

26. USA v. Urbina-Espinosa 190 views
    Texas Southern District Court

27. United States v. Ham 189 views
    Texas Southern District Court

28. Directv Inc v. Greg A Fischer 188 views
    California Central District Court

29. MARTIN EBERHARD v. ELON MUSK 186 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.

30. Dutcher v. Google LLC d/b/a YouTube, et al. 185 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

31. Household Finance Corporation Of California A v. Tom J Beno et al 184 views
    Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

32. BRAGGS, et al. v. BEI CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. 182 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

33. Brand New School LLC v. The Mill Group et al 181 views
    New York Southern District Court

34. Dymtrow v. Swift et al 180 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.

35. Moguldom Media Group, LLC v. Okasi 179 views
    Georgia Northern District Court

36. Emmanuel Macron v. Candace Owens, et al. 177 views
    Superior Court of Delaware

    FranceSocial Media

37. United States of America et al v. Durrani et al 173 views
    Ohio Southern District Court

    Forged Declarations

38. NVE Experience Agency, LLC et al v. Pension Systems Corporation et al 172 views
    California Central District Court

39. Yaser A. Albahri, Petitioner v. Florida 169 views
    Supreme Court of the United States

40. USA v. Zapata 169 views
    Texas Southern District Court

41. USA v. Harris 169 views
    Texas Southern District Court

42. Greenspan v. Random House, Inc. et al 168 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.

43. USA v. Santana-Rosales 168 views
    Texas Southern District Court

44. 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

45. Doe v. Trump et al 162 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.

46. Sinora Freeland v. Momentum For Mental Health, a California corporation 152 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

47. LeDoux v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles L L C 150 views
    Louisiana Western District Court

48. Gupta v. Yash Technologies 149 views
    Illinois Central District Court

49. Fileff v. General Motors LLC 148 views
    New York Southern District Court

50. USA v. O'Donovan 146 views
    California Central District Court

51. Binary Semantics Limited v. Minitab 145 views
    Pennsylvania Middle District Court

52. Scott Haskins v. Karen Francis et al 143 views
    Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

53. In Re: Dylan Palmer 142 views
    Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

54. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. Gerea, Paul Haidu 142 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

55. Pampena v. Musk 140 views
    California Northern District Court

    TwitterFake Accounts

56. USA v. Coates 135 views
    New York Southern District Court

57. The Haven Detox Fort Pierce, LLC v. City of Fort Pierce 134 views
    Florida Southern District Court

58. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT 132 views
    New Jersey District Court

59. Vieira v. One Workplace L. Ferrari LLC (Class Action) 132 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

60. Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC et al v. Non Typical, Inc. 129 views
    Texas Eastern District Court

61. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. 129 views
    New York Southern District Court

    DrakeCelebritiesRap Artists

62. United States v. CLARK 126 views
    District Of Columbia District Court

63. Samuelson v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company 126 views
    Florida Middle District Court

64. Securities And Exchange Commission v. Shafi et al 125 views
    California Northern District Court

    Silicon Valley

65. The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust et al v. Capital One, N.A. 124 views
    Florida Southern District Court

    President Donald J. Trump

66. Jacqueline L Domac v. Edward Furlong 122 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

67. Brown v. 93 NYRPT, LLC 122 views
    New York Western District Court

68. Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC 122 views
    California Northern District Court

    Artificial IntelligenceMass Corporate Book TheftFair Use Doctrine

69. Optical Fiber Unit Installation Apparatus Including A Unit For Preventing Backward Flowing Of Fluid 120 views
    United States Patent and Trademark Office

70. DBRAND INC. v. Casetagram Limited d/b/a Casetify 120 views
    Illinois Northern District Court

71. Perfect Plastic v. CPI Card Grp, et al 119 views
    Illinois Northern District Court

72. Eleazar Lopez v. Fresenius USA, Inc. et al 119 views
    California Central District Court

73. ALMOUSA v. TELSA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 118 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

    Tesla Worker Rights

74. United States v. Arencibia 117 views
    Florida Southern District Court

75. United States of America v. May 116 views
    Michigan Eastern District Court

76. 263BE83 v. Baucum et al 115 views
    Texas Northern District Court

77. Sega Of America, Inc. v. Dustin Hensley 114 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

78. Claimant ID 100271726 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al 113 views
    Louisiana Eastern District Court

79. X.AI LLC v. Ellison 113 views
    Minnesota District Court

    PornographyNudityArtificial Intelligence

80. USA v. Kincaid 112 views
    Massachusetts District Court

81. EB IP Holdings LLC et al v. Pro-Driver Leasing Systems, Inc. et al 111 views
    Texas Southern District Court

82. Vyskocil v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al 109 views
    California Central District Court

83. Fenix International Limited dba OnlyFans 4th Floor, Imperial House, 8 Kean Street London, England WC2B 4AS United Kingdom 109 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

84. USA v. Vilneus 109 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.

85. Jones et al v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP et al 108 views
    Kentucky Western District Court

86. 10/12/2010 Govaerts, Lucien vs Suntec Industries Inc 107 views
    Court of Chancery of Delaware

87. Vogel v. 9429 Walnut Cake, LLC et al 107 views
    California Central District Court

88. Baker et al v. Farmers Group Incorporated et al 107 views
    Arizona District Court

89. United States v. Irizarry 106 views
    New York Southern District Court

90. Soniya Soniya v. United Valet Parking, Inc, et al. 104 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

91. Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sherrifs et al v. County of Los Angeles et al 103 views
    California Central District Court

92. Gary B Schaeffer 102 views
    New York Southern Bankruptcy Court

93. 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

94. United States of America v. David Champion 101 views
    California Central District Court

95. The Hartford Gold Group, LLC v. Brandon Anthony Thor, et al. 101 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

96. ESTATE OF: ARRON WARD STANLEY SR. 101 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

97. Wyer v. Tesla, Inc. et al. 100 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.

98. Basil M Hantash v. Blue Cross Of California Dba Anthem Blue Cross, et al. 100 views
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

99. Tesla Inc. v. EVject, Inc. 100 views
    California Northern District Court

100. Coultrip et al v. Pfizer, Inc 99 views
     New York Southern District Court

Washington D.C. | Guam | Northern Marinara Islands | Puerto Rico | U.S. Virgin Islands

View near real-time filings with PlainSite Pro.