Cases 11 - 20 of 37
HERNANDEZ v. 132 N GROVE LLC et al
as 2:2020cv13932
Defendant:
671 LINCOLN LLC, 539 CENTRAL AVE LLC, 418-30 CENTRAL LLC and others
Plaintiff:
OSCAR HERNANDEZ
MAPLES v. PREMIER CARE & STAFFING SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2019cv04209
Plaintiff:
KAPRIA MAPLES
Defendant:
PREMIER CARE & STAFFING SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Salazar v. Maple Grove Lawn & Site Service, LLC et al
as 8:2019cv02645
Defendant:
Maple Grove Lawn & Site Service, LLC, Kimberly Hagler-Garrido, Jose Garrido and others
Plaintiff:
Dario Salazar
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Keo v. Maple Donuts, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv01953
Plaintiff:
La'Keya Keo
Defendant:
Charles Burnside and Maple Donuts, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Maples et al v. North Alabama Family Services Inc et al
as 2:2017cv02196
Plaintiff:
Tammy Maples , Kenya Henson , Angela Watkins and others
Defendant:
North Alabama Family Services Inc, North Alabama Professional and Residential Services Inc and Deanna Wilks
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Do v. Maple Leaf Properties LLLP et al
as 9:2017cv81183
Plaintiff:
Leah Do
Defendant:
Maple Leaf Properties LLLP and Irving Smokler
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Crosby v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2017cv01822
Plaintiff:
Jana Crosby
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights and Frank Consolo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Acosta v. Maple City Assisted Living, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv12797
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
Maple City Assisted Living, Inc. and Jill Plate
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Li v. J & R China Palace Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv04941
Defendant:
China Palace Inc., Zhou Zhao He, J & R China Palace Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Jie Li
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jackson v. Maple Dips, LLC
as 3:2016cv00296
Plaintiff:
Porchea M. Jackson
Defendant:
Maple Dips, LLC
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.
