Minnesota Labor Cases
Cases 151 - 160 of 587
Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 0:2017cv04489
Plaintiff:
Joseph Sienkaniec
Defendant:
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Nold et al v. Oehlke et al
as 0:2017cv04446
Plaintiff:
Edward Nold and Nancy Nold
Defendant:
Ingrid Oehlke, Chester Oehlke, Kenny Oehlke and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Acosta v. NABPCO Auto Parts of Lindstrom, Inc. et al.
as 0:2017cv04029
Defendant:
NABPCO Auto Parts of Lindstrom, Inc. and Brian Dreckman
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Anderson v. White Bear Restaurant Company
as 0:2017cv03548
Plaintiff:
Erica Anderson
Defendant:
White Bear Restaurant Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Parr et al v. Directv, LLC et al
as 0:2017cv03424
Defendant:
Directv, LLC, Multiband Field Services, Inc., Multiband Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
Steven Parr , Jeffery Adams , Todd Frank and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Acosta v. All Temporaries Midwest, Inc. et al
as 0:2017cv03330
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
All Temporaries Midwest, Inc. and Mark Liveringhouse
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Acker et al v. J.R. Jones Fixture Co. et al
as 0:2017cv02896
Plaintiff:
John Acker , Joseph Appeldorn , Jason Diederich and others
Defendant:
J.R. Jones Fixture Co., Douglas J. Jones, Brian Mandler and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Collins v. DC Group, Inc. et al
as 0:2017cv02095
Plaintiff:
Maureen Collins
Defendant:
DC Group, Inc. and Jonathan Frank
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Vanosdall v. Fibercare, Inc.
as 0:2017cv01219
Defendant:
Fibercare, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Chris Vanosdall
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc. v. Peterson et al
as 0:2017cv01011
Plaintiff:
Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc.
Defendant:
Ken B. Peterson and John Aiken
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
