Cases 131 - 137 of 137
Klotz v. Xerox Corporation et al
as 6:2007cv06545
Plaintiff:
Robin Klotz
Defendant:
Xerox Corporation, SHPS, Inc., SHPS Human Resource Solutions, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Friedman v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
as 1:2007cv09620
Plaintiff:
Edward A. Friedman
Defendant:
Prudential Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Okoniewski v. Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. et al
as 5:2007cv01105
Plaintiff:
Thomas J. Okoniewski
Defendant:
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Financial Group
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Kappel v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
as 7:2007cv06713
Plaintiff:
Michael Kappel
Defendant:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Woodland v. Rheem Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability Plan et al
as 1:2007cv03210
Plaintiff:
Galina Woodland
Defendant:
Rheem Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability Plan, Rheem Manufacturing Company Medical Plan, Rheem Manufacturing Company Medical Plan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.
Klotz v. Xerox Corporation et al
as 1:2007cv01734
Plaintiff:
Robin Klotz
Defendant:
Xerox Corporation, SHPS, Inc., SHPS Human Resource Solutions, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Demel v. Group Benefits Plan for Employees of Northern Telecom, Inc. et al
as 1:2007cv00189
Plaintiff:
Ernest Demel
Defendant:
Group Benefits Plan for Employees of Northern Telecom, Inc., Group Benefits Plan for Employees of Northern Telecom, Inc., Trustees and Administrator of the Group Benefits Plan for Employees of Northern Telecom, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
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.
