Cases filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California
Cases 81 - 90 of 103
RSS Feed | View as table | Sort by last update
Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan et al v. Sunrise Windows & Doors, Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv03819
Plaintiff: Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan, Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan, District Council 16 Northern California Health & Welfare Trust Fund and others
Defendant: Sunrise Windows & Doors, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.
Type: Labor › None
Sarratt v. United States of America
as 4:2009cv03237
Petitioner: James William Sarratt
Respondent: United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee et al v. South City Refrigeration Inc We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv03219
Plaintiff: U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee, U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee, U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee and others
Defendant: South City Refrigeration Inc
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Type: Labor › None
U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee et al v. Savior Plumbing, Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv02839
Plaintiff: U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee, U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee, U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee and others
Defendant: Savior Plumbing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Type: Labor › Plaintiff
McKinney v. Law Office of James Duncan et al
as 3:2009cv02605
Plaintiff: James William McKinney
Defendant: Law Office of James Duncan, David Eyster and Peyman Hedayati
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Type: Other Statutes › None
Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan et al v. Clark We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv02139
Plaintiff: Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan, Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan, James Williams and others
Defendant: Judy Clark
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Type: Labor › None
Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan et al v. Rodrigues We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv01431
Plaintiff: Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan, Northern California Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Plan, Local Union 342 and others
Defendant: Charlotte Rodrigues
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Type: Labor › None
Northern California Glaziers et al v. Pacific Glass & Aluminum, Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv01301
Plaintiff: Northern California Glaziers, Northern California Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan and others
Defendant: Pacific Glass & Aluminum, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Type: Labor › None
Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan et al v. Lawton Glass Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2009cv01222
Plaintiff: Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan, Northern California Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan, District Council 16 Northern California Health & Welfare Trust Fund and others
Defendant: Lawton Glass Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Type: Labor › None
Williams v. City and County of San Francisco et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv01053
Plaintiff: Odell James Williams
Defendant: City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department and Kevin Dempsey
Cause Of Action: Federal Question

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.

Why Is My Information Online?