Cases 1 - 6 of 6
MCHUGH v. VANGUARD BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, LLC et al
as 2:2014cv05867
Plaintiff:
JOHN B. MCHUGH, JR.
Defendant:
VANGUARD BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, LLC , NIELSEN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION , DOVER DODGE CHRYSLER-JEEP, INC. and others
Cross_claimant:
FRANKLIN SUSSEX HYUNDAI , NIELSEN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION and DOVER DODGE CHRYSLER-JEEP, INC.
Cross_defendant:
VANGUARD BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Afalava et al v. United States Department of Defense et al
as 1:2009cv02244
Plaintiff:
Roy G. Afalava, Stephen Asper, Walter Campbell and others
Defendant:
United States Department of Defense, Robert M. Gates, New Cumberland Defense Logistic Agency and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Clement Battoni, et al v. IBEW Local Union 102 Empl Pens, et al
as 09-2030
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CLEMENT BATTONI, RAYMOND GIULIANO, JAMES W. VREELAND and others
Defendant - Appellant:
IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL PENSION PLAN, IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL WELFARE FUND, JOHN E. MCHUGH and others
FISH et al v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY et al
as 3:2009cv00129
Plaintiff:
DAVID C. FISH, RICHARD J. GAUDY, ANGELO M. AGUILERA and others
Defendant:
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, KODAK RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN and KODAK RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN COMMITTEE
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Clement Battoni, et al v. IBEW Local Union 102 Empl Pens, et al
as 08-3924
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLEMENT BATTONI, NEIL BATTONI, RAYMOND S. DEMARCO, JR. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
REGINA DELESKY, IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL PENSION PLAN, IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL WELFARE FUND and others
Clement Battoni, et al v. IBEW Local Union 102 Empl Pens, et al
as 08-3743
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CLEMENT BATTONI, NEIL BATTONI, RAYMOND S. DEMARCO, JR. and others
Defendant - Appellant:
IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL PENSION PLAN, IBEW LOCAL UNION 102 EMPL WELFARE FUND, JOHN E. MCHUGH and others
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.
