Cases 61 - 70 of 702
Wright v. Dale Aviation, Inc. et al
as 4:2021cv00831
Plaintiff:
Joe Randall Wright
Defendant:
Dale Aviation, Inc. doing business as Medical Air Rescue Company and Engage Employer, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Putnam v. Perficient, Inc.
as 4:2021cv00739
Plaintiff:
Jason Putnam
Defendant:
Perficient, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hollis v. J4 Development, Inc.
as 4:2021cv00535
Plaintiff:
Jason Hollis
Defendant:
J4 Development, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Lee v. Shaw Butane, Inc.
as 9:2021cv00278
Plaintiff:
Michael Lee
Defendant:
SHAW BUTANE, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Skogen et al v. RFJ Auto Group, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan et al
as 4:2019cv00585
Defendant:
RFJ Auto Group, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan, Group & Pension Administrators, Inc., RFJ Auto Group, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
John Skogen and Cindy Skogen
Not Classified By Court:
John B Shipp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Walsh v. Peterson et al
as 4:2021cv00867
Plaintiff:
Martin J Walsh
Defendant:
Robert Peterson, Vasilia Peterson, Paul Generale and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Mohamed v. Kayden Industries (USA), Inc.
as 4:2021cv00695
Plaintiff:
Eslam M. Mohamed
Defendant:
Kayden Industries (USA), Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Rivera v. BCS Switchgear, Inc.
as 4:2021cv00664
Plaintiff:
Daniel Rivera
Defendant:
BCS Switchgear, Inc. and ENP Power Services of Texas, LLC f/k/a EPS Power Services Texas LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Harrison v. Tyler Technologies, Inc.
as 4:2021cv00607
Plaintiff:
Talia N. Harrison
Defendant:
Tyler Technologies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Gomez v. Camaro Inc. et al
as 9:2021cv00126
Plaintiff:
Antonio Gomez
Defendant:
Camaro Inc. doing business as Frutilandia Meat Market #8, Maria Molina and Carmen Gallo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
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.
