Cases 31 - 37 of 37
UPS Frieght v. National Union Fire Insurance, et al
as 08-4350
Plaintiff - Appellant:
UPS FREIGHT, FKA Overnight Transportation Co
Defendant - Appellee:
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA and CC EASTERN INC
PARK et al v. YI et al
as 2:2007cv05574
Plaintiff:
SOON JUNG PARK, TAE JUN PARK and CHEOL S. SON
Defendant:
CHONG TAE YI, HYE KYUNG YI, CHONG UP YI and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT v. POCKET VALLEY NURSERY, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv03194
Plaintiff:
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT
Defendant:
POCKET VALLEY NURSERY, INC. and CONIFERS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Default
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT v. POCIUS et al
as 2:2007cv03193
Plaintiff:
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT
Defendant:
E. WAYNE POCIUS and MICHAEL W. POCIUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Default
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT v. POCKET VALLEY NURSERY, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv03195
Plaintiff:
UPS CAPITAL BUSINESS CREDIT
Defendant:
POCKET VALLEY NURSERY, INC., CONIFERS. LLC, E. WAYNE POCIUS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
CAREY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE et al
as 2:2007cv00644
Plaintiff:
JAMES D. CAREY
Defendant:
UPS OF AMERICA, INC., FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN, UPS OF AMERICA, INC., FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. M/V MAERSK PHUKET et al
as 2:2007cv00622
Plaintiff:
XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant:
M/V MAERSK PHUKET, NEDLLOYD GENOA LTD., NEDLLOYD GENOA LTD. and others
Cross Claimant:
P&O NEDLLOYD LTD., P&O NEDLLOYD LTD., NEDLLOYD GENOA LTD. and others
Cross Defendant:
CP SHIPS USA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, CP SHIPS USA, LLC, HAPAG-LLOYD USA, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
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.
