Cases 81 - 90 of 1,059
HARRIS v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.
as 1:2022cv00002
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY HARRIS and LITA FILLIPO
Defendant:
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. and THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
KELLEMS v. P.C. ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
as 1:2022cv02107
Plaintiff:
BREANNA KELLEMS
Defendant:
P.C. ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC
as 1:2022cv02026
Plaintiff:
TINA BELL
Defendant:
FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
DOAKS v. EXEL, INC. d/b/a DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (USA)
as 1:2022cv02232
Plaintiff:
KEENAN DOAKS
Defendant:
EXEL, INC. d/b/a DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (USA)
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
GUINNUP v. MAD MUSHROOM FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC
as 1:2022cv01954
Plaintiff:
Lyle Guinnup
Defendant:
Mad Mushroom Franchise Group, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
ROMERO v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH DEACONESS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, LLC
as 3:2022cv00147
Plaintiff:
ROBIN L. ROMERO
Defendant:
ENCOMPASS HEALTH DEACONESS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
WALTERS v. NICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC.
as 1:2022cv01780
Plaintiff:
JEFFERY WALTERS
Defendant:
NICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
STIDHAM v. 317 GROW, LLC et al
as 1:2022cv02115
Plaintiff:
SHANE STIDHAM
Defendant:
317 GROW, LLC and AMANDA WAGGONER
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
CAMPBELL v. TOUCH OF CLASS, INC. et al
as 1:2022cv01918
Plaintiff:
BRANDI CAMPBELL
Defendant:
TOUCH OF CLASS, INC., JAMES D. MCCOLLUM and JOE DOWNING
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206 Collect Unpaid Wages
RHODES v. EVANSVILLE ASSET CARE et al
as 3:2022cv00132
Plaintiff:
PATRICK RHODES
Defendant:
EVANSVILLE ASSET CARE and ZACHARY ALAN SCHMITZ
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.
