Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Kelley v. South Carolina Military Department et al
as 3:2022cv02214
Plaintiff:
Patrick S. Kelley
Defendant:
South Carolina Military Department, South Carolina Army National Guard, Major General R. Van McCarty and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract
The Phoenix Insurance Company et al v. March-Westin Company, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv00007
Defendant:
March-Westin Company, Inc. and West Virginia Army National Guard
Plaintiff:
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Phoenix Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lindsey v. Barr et al
as 4:2019cv00228
Defendant:
Timothy Garrison, US Attorney General William Barr and Kansas Army National Guard
Plaintiff:
Charles E Lindsey
RISCO, INC. v. NEW JERSEY ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
as 3:2018cv02230
Defendant:
NEW JERSEY ARMY NATIONAL GUARD and NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS
Plaintiff:
RISCO, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Danville Inn et al v. Army National Guard
as 2:2016cv02319
Plaintiff:
Danville Inn and Ushakant Patel
Defendant:
Army National Guard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Danville Inn et al v. Army National Guard
as 2:2016cv02272
Plaintiff:
Danville Inn and U Patel
Defendant:
Army National Guard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Street v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America et al
as 1:2015cv00228
Plaintiff:
Donielle Trees Street
Defendant:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America , State of Mississippi Army National Guard and Adam R Street
Third_party_plaintiff:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Third_party_defendant:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Counter_claimant:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Counter_defendant:
Donielle Trees Street and Adam R Street
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
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.
