Cases 1 - 10 of 40
Oriska Corporation v. Highgate LTC Management, LLC
as 22-1155
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Oriska Corporation, individually and derivatively to Carrier-Defendant Oriska Insurance Company
Defendant:
Highgate LTC Management, LLC, Employer-Defendant, DBA Northwoods Rehabilitaion & Extended Care, Eugene Nachamkin, Owner-Defendant, Diana R. Koehler, Owner-Defendant and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Donna Hodge, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Annette Hall, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Karen Grant Williams, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant and others
Oriska Corporation v. Troy Operating Co. LLC
as 22-1139
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Oriska Corporation, individually and derivatively to Carrier Defendant Oriska Insurance Company
Defendant:
Troy Operating Co. LLC, (Diamond) Employer-Defendant, Bent Philipson, Owner-Defendant, The Philipson Family Trust, Prohibited Transaction Defendant and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Donna Hodge, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Annette Hall, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Karen Grant Williams, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant and others
Oriska Corporation v. Niskayuna Operating Co., LLC
as 22-1126
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Oriska Corporation, individually and derivatively to Carrier-Defendant Oriska Insurance Company
Defendant:
Niskayuna Operating Co., LLC, Employer-Defendant, Bent Philipson, Owner-Defendant, The Philipson Family Trust, Prohibited Transaction Defendants and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Donna Hodge, Class Representatives of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appearClass Defendant, Annette Hall, Representatives of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Karen Grant Williams, as the Class Representatives of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant and others
Giantonio v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
as 18-2034
Plaintiff:
John J. Giantonio, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Ramesh C. Kinra
Defendant:
John Does 1-20 and Richard Roes, 1-20
Defendant - Appellant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Investment Committee, Plan Administrator and others
Giantonio v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
as 18-1886
Plaintiff:
John J. Giantonio, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee:
Ramesh C. Kinra
Defendant - Appellee:
Travis Stricker
Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Investment Committee, Plan Administrator and others
Defendant:
John Does 1-20 and Richard Roes, 1-20
Sacerdote v. Retirement Plan Committee
as 18-1558
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Dr. Alan Sacerdote, individually and as representatives of class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York Universi, Dr. Herbert Samuels, individually and as representatives of class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York Univers, Marie E. Monaco, individually and as representatives of class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York University and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Retirement Plan Committee, Michael Burke, Richard Bing and others
Defendant:
NYU Langone Hospitals and NYU Langone Health System
Jander v. International Business Machine
as 17-3518
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Larry W. Jander, and all other individuals similarly situated and Richard J. Waksman
Defendant - Appellee:
International Business Machines Corporation, Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, Richard Carroll and others
Frommert v. Conkright
as 17-1808
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Paul J. Frommert, Donald S. Foote, Thomas I. Barnes and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Sally L. Conkright, Xerox Corporation Pension Plan Administrator, Patricia M. Nazementz, Xerox Corporation Pension Plan Administrator, Xerox Corporation and others
Frommert v. Conkright
as 17-738
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Paul J. Frommert, Donald S. Foote, Thomas I. Barnes and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Sally L. Conkright, Xerox Corporation Pension Plan Administrator, Patricia M. Nazementz, Xerox Corporation Pension Plan Administrator, Xerox Corporation and others
The National Retirement Fund v. Caesars Entertainment
as 17-249
Plaintiff - Appellee:
The National Retirement Fund, each on behalf of the Legacy Plan of the National Retirement Fund and Richard N. Rust, in his capacity as Fund Manager, each on behalf of the Legacy Plan of the National Retirement Fund
Defendant:
John Does, 1-10 all other trades or businesses under common control with Caesars Entertainment Corporation and Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC that have not filed for bankruptcy
Defendant - Appellant:
Caesars Entertainment Corporation and Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC
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.
