Cases 11 - 17 of 17
Pope et al v. YRC, Inc. et al
as 3:2011cv01177
Plaintiff:
David Pope and Kimberly Pope
Defendant:
YRC, Inc. , YRC Logistics Services, Inc. and Robert E. Vermaaten
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00876
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Classified By Court:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
EXPRESS LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC. v. DYNAMEX, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv03257
Plaintiff:
EXPRESS LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC.
Defendant:
DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC., DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv02793
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
ORTIZ et al v. EPES EXPRESS SERVICES INC. et al
as 2:2007cv04871
Plaintiff:
RICARDO ORTIZ and ELIZABETH ORTIZ
Defendant:
EPES EXPRESS SERVICES INC., EPES LOGISTICS SERVICES INC. and ROMANIA JONES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
MASTER PRINTING, INC. v. BOW FINISHING CO. et al
as 2:2007cv02036
Plaintiff:
MASTER PRINTING, INC.
Defendant:
BOW FINISHING CO., TOTEL LOGISTICS SERVICE, INC. and ABC CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
LOCAL 1478-2, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION v. TOYOTA LOGISTIC SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2007cv01952
Plaintiff:
LOCAL 1478-2, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION and LOCAL 1478-2, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
TOYOTA LOGISTIC SERVICES, INC.
Counter Claimant:
TOYOTA LOGISTIC SERVICES, INC.
Counter Defendant:
LOCAL 1478-2, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION and LOCAL 1478-2, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
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.
