Cases 41 - 50 of 141
Armstrong v. No Pressure Roof Cleaning LLC et al
as 9:2017cv81356
Plaintiff:
Ryan Armstrong
Defendant:
No Pressure Roof Cleaning LLC and Paul Guitard
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Fernando et al v. Midland Grocery, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv07231
Defendant:
Midland Grocery, Inc., Jaswinder Kaur, D&H Convenience Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Suraj Fernando, Oshan Arachchige, Asith Galkandage and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Armstrong v. Strickland & Sons Pipeline, Inc.
as 2:2017cv00271
Plaintiff:
James Armstrong
Defendant:
Strickland & Sons Pipeline, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Dean v. W. Aviation, LLC
as 0:2017cv62282
Plaintiff:
Matthew Dean and Vinson Armstrong
Defendant:
W. Aviation, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Battrell et al v. Armstrong Flooring Inc
as 2:2017cv02150
Plaintiff:
Rockford Battrell and Abel Torres
Defendant:
Armstrong Flooring Inc
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Ferguson v. Sanderson Farms Inc.
as 6:2017cv00135
Plaintiff:
Pamela Armstrong Ferguson
Defendant:
Sanderson Farms Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Armstrong et al v. Tejas Courier, LLC et al
as 4:2017cv01521
Plaintiff:
Henry Armstrong , Cheli Armstrong , Cordell Coleman and others
Defendant:
Tejas Courier, LLC and Mark Vargas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Pippen et al v. Fulton County, Georgia
as 1:2017cv00362
Plaintiff:
Damarcus Pippen and William Armstrong, Jr.
Defendant:
Fulton County, Georgia
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Armstrong-Head v. ProActive Partners Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00207
Plaintiff:
Eleanor Armstrong-Head
Defendant:
ProActive Partners Inc. , Maxine Vigil Russell and Lawrence Edward Russell
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Husting et al v. Maplebear, Inc., dba Instacart
as 3:2016cv06921
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Husting , Matthew Clayton , Ladia Armstrong and others
Defendant:
Maplebear, Inc
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.
