Cases 51 - 60 of 92
Sutton et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2019cv05186
Defendant:
C R BARD INC, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON INC and others
Plaintiff:
Kathleen Sutton and Glenn Sutton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BRACKMAN v. MENTOR WORLDWIDE LLC
as 2:2019cv18279
Defendant:
MENTOR WORLDWIDE LLC, MENTOR CORPORATION, C. R. BARD, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
Maritza Brackman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GARRETT v. C. R. BARD, INC. et al
as 1:2019cv18072
Defendant:
UNKNOWN BUSINESSES AND/OR CORPORATIONS 1- 50, BARD PERIPHERAL VASULAR, INC., JOHN DOES/JANE DOES 1-30 and others
Plaintiff:
MARGARET GARRETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
CLAYTON v. C. R. BARD, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv17059
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, BARD PERIPHERAL VASULAR, INC. (a subsdiary and/or division of defendant C.R. BARD, INC.), C. R. BARD, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
ALLEN D. CLAYTON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Tobin et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2019cv40001
Plaintiff:
IRA MEYERS and TERESA TOBIN
Defendant:
ETHICON INC, C R BARD INC and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Stout et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 4:2019cv00637
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Denise Stout and Doyle Stout
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DEAN et al v. DAVOL, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv07240
Defendant:
DAVOL, INC. and C. R. BARD, INC.
Plaintiff:
ROY DEAN and ALCY DEAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GOMEZ v. DAVOL, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv07248
Defendant:
DAVOL, INC. and C. R. BARD, INC.
Plaintiff:
MARIA GOMEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WOOD et al v. DAVOL, INC. et al
as 2:2018cv13318
Defendant:
DAVOL, INC. and C. R. BARD, INC.
Plaintiff:
RHONDA WOOD and JERRY WOOD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Corley-Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2018cv02999
Plaintiff:
Celia Corley-Davis
Defendant:
C. R. BARD, INC.
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.
