Cases 21 - 30 of 76
Faraday and Future Inc. v. Adient PLC
as 2:2018cv08807
Defendant:
ADIENT PLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to FUTURIS AUTOMOTIVE (US) INC., d/b/a FUTURIS GROUP, Futuris Automotive (US) Inc., Adient US LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Faraday&Future, Inc. and Farady and Future Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Sunrise Ford v. CDK Global, LLC et al
as 5:2018cv01426
Plaintiff:
Sunrise Ford dba Sunrise Ford Fontana, Sunrise Ford and Sunrise Ford doing business as Sunrise Ford Fontana
Defendant:
CDK Global, LLC, as successor-in-interest to ADP Dealer Services, Inc., IP Networked Services, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Michael Blemaster v. Horatiu Sabo, et al
as 18-16200
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHAEL BLEMASTER, an individual as successor to RCU, Inc., an Arizona corporation successor in interest RCU Incorporated
Defendant:
HORATIU CORNELIUS SABO, an individual; son of Ana; co-executor of the Tataru Estate estate of Ana Viorica Tataru and RARE CORNEL SABO, an individual; son of Ana; co-executor of the Tataru Estate estate of Ana Viorica Tataru
Movant - Appellant:
FLORIN VALERIU IVAN, Counsel for Defendants; proposed Intervenor and IVAN & KILMARK PLC, Counsel for Defendants; proposed Intervenor
Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc, et al
as 18-55536
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public
Defendant - Appellee:
AUTOZONE INC and DOES, 1-25, inclusive
Movant - Appellant:
MARCUS BEYROUTI, Proposed Intervenor and FELIPE MONTELLANO, Proposed Intervenor
Michael Blemaster v. Horatiu Sabo, et al
as 18-15445
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHAEL BLEMASTER, an individual as successor to RCU, Inc., an Arizona corporation successor in interest RCU Incorporated
Defendant:
HORATIU CORNELIUS SABO, an individual; son of Ana; co-executor of the Tataru Estate estate of Ana Viorica Tataru and RARE CORNEL SABO, an individual; son of Ana; co-executor of the Tataru Estate estate of Ana Viorica Tataru
Movant - Appellant:
FLORIN VALERIU IVAN, Counsel for Defendants; proposed Intervenor and IVAN & KILMARK PLC, Counsel for Defendants; proposed Intervenor
Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc, et al
as 18-55274
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public
Defendant - Appellee:
AUTOZONE INC and DOES, 1-25, inclusive
Movant - Appellant:
MARCUS BEYROUTI, Proposed Intervenor and FELIPE MONTELLANO, Proposed Intervenor
Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc, et al
as 18-55273
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public
Defendant - Appellee:
AUTOZONE INC and DOES, 1-25, inclusive
Mark Yi v. Circle K Stores Inc.
as 17-55971
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARK YI, an individual, as successor in interest to OE SUN YI
Defendant - Appellee:
CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas corporation
Jacqueline Keller, et al v. Federal Insurance Company, et al
as 17-55323
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JACQUELINE KELLER and PHILLIP YANEY
Defendant - Appellee:
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, CHUBB INA HOLDINGS, INC., as successor-in-interest to The Chubb Corporation erroneously sued as Chubb Corporation, AKA Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and CHUBB LTD., a corporation, successor-in-interest by Merger to Defendants Federal Insurance Company and Chubb Corporation, FKA Ace Limited, AKA Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Branch Banking and Trust Compa v. D.M.S.I., LLC, et al
as 16-16710
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, as successor in interest on behalf of Colonial Bank, N.A.
Defendant - Appellant:
D.M.S.I., LLC, NOAM SCHWARTZ, NST HOLDING, INC., Trustee 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.
