Cases 1 - 10 of 44
RICHARDSON v. CITY OF MARTINSVILLE et al
as 1:2023cv01701
Plaintiff:
NATHAN RICHARDSON
Defendant:
CITY OF MARTINSVILLE and JOHN RICHARDS
Cause Of Action: 38 U.S.C. § 4311 Uniformed Service Employment or Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) - Discrimination
DUAN v. M X PAN INCORPORATED d/b/a FORMOSA SEAFOOD BUFFET et al
as 1:2023cv00752
Defendant:
SIU WONG PING, MIN XIU DONG, M X PAN INCORPORATED doing business as Formosa Seafood Buffet and others
Plaintiff:
KUN DUAN
KEMP v. SMPRETTY, INC.
as 1:2023cv00560
Plaintiff:
MEGAN KEMP
Defendant:
SMPRETTY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
NEELEY v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
as 1:2022cv01887
Plaintiff:
STEVEN J. NEELEY, JR.
Defendant:
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
CREASON v. ELANCO US INC.
as 1:2022cv00853
Plaintiff:
CLAYTON CREASON
Defendant:
ELANCO US INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
POULSON v. PEPSICO, INC. d/b/a PFS et al
as 1:2022cv00725
Plaintiff:
ALLISON POULSON
Defendant:
PEPSICO, INC., FRITO-LAY, INC. and PEPSICO, INC. d/b/a PFS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
PALOMAR v. SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA
as 1:2019cv04693
Plaintiff:
ALBERT PALOMAR, DANTE HUTTON, TAYLOR KIRBY and others
Defendant:
SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ANTHONY v. LEADERS MOVING COMPANY
as 1:2018cv03202
Plaintiff:
BRYCE ANTHONY
Defendant:
LEADERS MOVING COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
NELLIS v. J.J.B. HILLIARD, W.L. LYONS, LLC
as 3:2018cv00038
Defendant:
J.J.B. HILLIARD, W.L. LYONS, LLC
Plaintiff:
THERESA F. NELLIS
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 5 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
GALLAGHER v. CROSS LIGHT, INC.
as 4:2016cv00223
Defendant:
CROSS LIGHT, INC.
Plaintiff:
JOHN J. GALLAGHER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
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.
