Cases 1 - 10 of 15
William B. Cowen v. Mason Dixon Intermodal et al
as 2:2021cv05683
Petitioner:
National Labor Relations Board, Region 21 and William B. Cowen
Respondent:
Mason Dixon Intermodal d/b/a Universal Intermodal Services, Southern Counties Express, Inc., Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC and others
Amicus Curiae:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 et al
as 2:2019cv08585
Defendant:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Union Local Number 848, Shippers Transport Express, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive and others
Plaintiff:
Peter Guinan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
National Labor Relations Board v. Velox Express, Inc.
as 2:2017cv02311
Petitioner:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent:
Velox Express, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 160
Ohr v. Latino Express, Inc.
as 1:2013cv09123
Plaintiff:
Peter Sung Ohr
Defendant:
Latino Express, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 160
ABF Freight System v. IBT, et al
as 12-3090
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABF Freight System, Inc.
Defendant - Appellee:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement, Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement, Teamsters Local Union 373, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement and others
Baez Romero v. DHL Express Inc et al
as 1:2012cv01942
Plaintiff:
Mauricio Baez Romero
Defendant:
DHL Express Inc and Local 295 I.B.T.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
USA United Fleet Inc. et al v. Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Pension Fund et al
as 1:2011cv02140
ThirdParty Plaintiff:
Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Pension Fund and Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Welfare Fund
Counter Claimant:
Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Pension Fund, Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Pension Fund, Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Welfare Fund and others
Defendant:
Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Pension Fund, Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union New York Welfare Fund and New York City Department of Education
ThirdParty Defendant:
William Moran, Northeast Buses Inc., Northeast Transit, Inc. and others
Counter Defendant:
Tom Tom Escorts Only, Inc., Tom Tom Escorts Only, Inc., USA United Bus Express Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Tom Tom Escorts Only, Inc., USA United Bus Express Inc., USA United Fleet Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Moran v. Latino Express, Inc.
as 1:2011cv02383
Petitioner:
Gail R. Moran
Respondent:
Latino Express, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 160
ABF Freight System v. IBT, et al
as 11-1159
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABF Freight System, Inc.
Defendant - Appellee:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement, Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement, Teamsters Local Union 373, as and for themselves and as representatives of a class of teamsters local unions that are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement and others
ABF Freight System, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al
as 2:2010cv02165
Plaintiff:
ABF Freight System, Inc.
Defendant:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee, Teamsters Local Union 373 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
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.
