Cases 21 - 30 of 43
HIRSCHFELD v. BECKERLE et al
as 3:2018cv14796
Defendant:
CHARLES PRINCE, ANNE M MULCAHY, WILLIAM D PEREZ and others
Plaintiff:
MARC HIRSCHFELD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Raabe et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
as 3:2018cv00074
Respondent:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Petitioner:
Rodney D. Raabe , Sapheon Inc. , Sapheon LLC and others
Cause Of Action: Motion to Compel
David Zamos v. McNeil PPC Inc, et al
as 17-1217
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID ZAMOS
Defendant - Appellee:
MCNEIL PPC INC, A Division of Johnson & Johnson and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC
ZAMOS v. MCNEIL-PPC, INC. et al
as 2:2016cv05038
Plaintiff:
DAVID ZAMOS
Defendant:
MCNEIL-PPC, INC. and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. PETERKINS
as 2:2015cv08676
Plaintiff:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant:
JOHN PETERKINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Behrens v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv01136
Plaintiff:
Rob Behrens
Defendant:
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS INC and Johnson & Johnson Services Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
COPELAND v. PRINCE et al
as 3:2011cv04993
Plaintiff:
M.J. COPELAND and Leslie Katz
Defendant:
CHARLES O. PRINCE, III, ANNE M. MULCAHY, MARY SUE COLEMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
KATZ v. WELDON et al
as 3:2011cv04994
Plaintiff:
LESLIE KATZ
Defendant:
WILLIAM C. WELDON, DOMINIC J. CARUSO, RUSSELL C. DEYO and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729
SMITH v. MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE et al
as 2:2010cv05654
Plaintiff:
JOHN SMITH
Defendant:
MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROBERSON et al v. MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE et al
as 2:2010cv05560
Plaintiff:
EMILE ROBERSON and AMBER ROBERSON
Defendant:
MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
