US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Contract Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 225
The United States of America, for the use and benefit of High Point Electric & Fire, LLC et al v. Up-Side Management Company et al
as 3:2024cv00158
Plaintiff:
High Point Electric & Fire, LLC, High Point Concrete & Civil, LLC, The United States of America, for the use and benefit of High Point Electric & Fire, LLC and others
Defendant:
Up-Side Management Company, On-Point Risk Solutions, Inc. and Aegis Security Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 3131
The United States of America, for the use of Midsouth Paving, Inc. v. Up-Side Management Company, Inc., et al
as 3:2024cv00144
Plaintiff:
The United States of America, for the use of Midsouth Paving, Inc.
Defendant:
Up-Side Management Company, Inc. and Aegis Security Insurance Corporation
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 3131
Intergrated Construction Management, Inc. v. Wolverine Fire Protection, Co., et al
as 6:2024cv00137
Plaintiff:
Intergrated Construction Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Mr. Edward J. Kinberg and The United States of America
Defendant:
Wolverine Fire Protection, Co., a Michigan corporation, Great American Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, Wolverine Fire Protection, Co. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1352 Miller Act
United States of America for the use and benefit of Argos USA, LLC v. Surecrete, LLC et al
as 3:2023cv01456
Plaintiff:
United States of America for the use and benefit of Argos USA, LLC and United States of America
Defendant:
Surecrete, LLC, Dallas Nugent, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1352 Miller Act
United States of America for the use and benefit of RQ Construction, LLC v. Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. et al
as 6:2023cv02118
Plaintiff:
United States of America for the use and benefit of RQ Construction, LLC
Defendant:
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc., Federal Insurance Company, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and others
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 270 Miller Act
Conner Development Group, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
as 3:2023cv01179
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the use and benefit of CONNER DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., and Conner Development Group, Inc.
Defendant:
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
Petitioner:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 270 Miller Act
United States of America et al v. D&M Construction, Inc., et al
as 3:2023cv00865
Plaintiff:
United States of America and STAY DRY ROOFING, LLC
Defendant:
D&M CONSTRUCTION, INC. n/k/a FORESIGHT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, BLUE STAR ROOFING, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1352 Miller Act
United States v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company
as 3:2023cv00339
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES f/u/b/o MILITARY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION d/b/a MIL-CON ELECTRIC COMPANY and United States a Florida Corporation for the use and benefit of Military Construction Corporation doing business as Mil-Con Electric Company
Defendant:
The Cincinnati Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 270 Miller Act
United States of America et al v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America et al
as 6:2023cv00244
Plaintiff:
United States for the use and benefit of Randall Mechanical, Inc., United States for the use and benefit of Randall Electrical Contractors, Inc., United States of America and others
Defendant:
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 270 Miller Act
Incryo LLC v. Westfield Insurance Company
as 8:2022cv02559
Plaintiff:
Incryo LLC
Defendant:
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, ANDERSON PLACE CONSTRUCTION, LLC and Westfield Insurance Company
Petitioner:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 270 Miller Act
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
