Cases 21 - 30 of 196
Walsh v. Fazbhu, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00262
Plaintiff:
Walsh J. Martin and Martin J. Walsh
Defendant:
Fazbhu, Inc. Fazbhu, Inc. doing business as 7-Eleven-Georgetown Pike doing business as 7-Eleven-Davenport Drive doing business as 7-Eleven-Edds Lane doing business as 7-Eleven-Old Dominion and Fazle Bhuiyan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00066
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Lane v. DBI Services, LLC
as 6:2022cv00041
Plaintiff:
Steven Lane
Defendant:
DBI Services, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Hosmer v. Lane Logix, LLC
as 5:2021cv02076
Plaintiff:
Patricia Hosmer
Defendant:
Lane Logix, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Pallante et al v. Hussman Services Corporation
as 3:2021cv00271
Plaintiff:
LeRoy Pallante, Shawn Johnson, Cameron Lane and others
Defendant:
Hussman Services Corporation
Mateo et al v. DJKM Lane Food Corp et al
as 1:2021cv04518
Defendant:
Alex Lopez and DJKM Lane Food Corp doing business as Food Universe Marketplace
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Mateo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Williams v. City of Jesup, Georgia et al
as 2:2021cv00007
Defendant:
Mike Lane and City of Jesup, Georgia
Plaintiff:
Cody Williams
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Lane v. Waste Pro USA, Inc. et al
as 6:2020cv01785
Plaintiff:
ANTROINE LANE
Defendant:
WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC. and WASTE PRO USA, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Lane v. Metro Services, Inc. (TV2)
as 1:2020cv00279
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lane
Defendant:
Metro Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Seto et al v. County of San Joaquin
as 2:2020at00872
Plaintiff:
Nick Taiariol, Shawn Cannon, Daniel Levin and others
Defendant:
County of San Joaquin
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.
