Cases 1 - 10 of 10
SU v. LIM PR CLEANING SERVICES et al
as 2:2024mc00214
Respondent:
JUAN E. ALONSO, LIM PR CLEANING SERVICES and ALONSO PACHECO
Petitioner:
JULIE A. SU
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
TAN et al v. PKLL INC. et al
as 2:2023cv02512
Plaintiff:
POH EAN TAN, WAI LOONG KONG and CHOW SIM SENG
Defendant:
PKLL INC., PIANG LIM LIEW and KOOI SHIAM LIEW
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
LIM v. BEAUTY TOWN INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al
as 2:2018cv16972
Plaintiff:
YONG NAM LIM
Defendant:
DON PARK and BEAUTY TOWN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938
Choi v. Sushi Maru Express Corp.
as 2:2017cv05230
Plaintiff:
DAE SUB CHOI
Defendant:
Sushi Maru Express Corp., Sushi Nara, Komolo, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206
MENDOZA et al v. HAYNE LIM, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv06676
Plaintiff:
CRYSTAL MENDOZA , ANSELMO SANCHEZ , LUIS PALACIOS-ROMERO and others
Defendant:
HAYNE LIM, INC., BAGEL 23 INC., MY BAGEL HEAVEN INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
GOH v. COCO ASIAN CUISINE, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv06310
Plaintiff:
JIT SHI GOH
Defendant:
COCO ASIAN CUISINE, INC. and FATT SENG LIM
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
BECK v. SUSHI MARU EXPRESS et al
as 2:2014cv03488
Plaintiff:
JONGWON BECK
Defendant:
SUSHI MARU EXPRESS, KEVIN KIM, HAK JAE LIM and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
SUN PARK v. JOHN DOE CORP. et al
as 3:2012cv06588
Plaintiff:
BYEONG SUN PARK
Defendant:
JOHN DOE CORP., IK JOONG KIM and SUNG HEE LIM
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
WASHINGTON v. LIM
as 2:2012cv05497
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL WASHINGTON
Defendant:
HOR KIM LIM
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2009cv06025
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
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.
