Cases 11 - 17 of 17
Hugler v. Advanced Urology of New Mexico
as 1:2017cv00247
Plaintiff:
Edward C. Hugler
Defendant:
Advanced Urology of New Mexico S/H 401 (K) Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132
Hugler v. Angel's Guard Protection Services, Inc.
as 3:2017cv01234
Petitioner:
Edward C. Hugler
Respondent:
Angel's Guard Protection Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Administrative Subpoena
HUGLER v CULTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC et al
as 2:2017mc00104
Petitioner:
EDWARD C. HUGLER
Respondent:
CULTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC and CLAUDY PIERRE
Cause Of Action: no cause specified
HUGLER v. ADVANCED URGENT CARE OF CITY LINE LLC et al
as 2:2017mc00011
Petitioner:
EDWARD C. HUGLER
Respondent:
ADVANCED URGENT CARE OF CITY LINE LLC and MEHDI NIKPARVAR
Cause Of Action: Motion for Order
Type:
Other Statutes
Ned Stevens Gutter Cleaning & v. OSHA, et al
as 17-1216
Petitioner:
NED STEVENS GUTTER CLEANING & GENERAL CONTRACTING OF TEXAS, LLC
Respondent:
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EDWARD C. HUGLER, Acting Secretary of Labor
Ned Stevens Gutter Cleaning & v. OSHA, et al
as 17-1216
Respondent:
EDWARD C. HUGLER, Acting Secretary of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
Petitioner:
NED STEVENS GUTTER CLEANING & GENERAL CONTRACTING OF TEXAS, LLC
Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles v. R. Acosta
as 16-2203
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PABLO GONZALEZ-AVILES and HELEODORO PENA-GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
Defendant:
THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor, EDWARD C. HUGLER, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor and others
Defendant / Appellant:
OUTSIDE UNLIMITED, INC., AKEHURST LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., A.R. STAR SERVICES, INC. and others
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.
