Cases 11 - 20 of 43
Spurlino v. Holcim et al
as 2:2014cv00461
Plaintiff:
Cyrus Spurlino
Defendant:
Holcim and Ash Grove Cement
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Westroc Holdco v. Holcim et al
as 2:2013cv00432
Plaintiff:
Westroc Holdco
Defendant:
Holcim and Ash Grove Cement
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0015 Antitrust Litigation
Holcim (US) Inc. v. EPA
as 13-1165
Petitioner:
Holcim (US) Inc.
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Bay Area Remodelers, Inc., et al v. Cemex Inc., et al
as 12-90002
Petitioner:
BAY AREA REMODELERS, INC., CARPENTER CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., DANIEL MORGAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. and others
Respondent:
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., HOLCIM (US) INC., LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY and others
:
SERVICE
Holcim (US) Inc v. Limerock Materials LLC et al
as 5:2011cv01964
Plaintiff:
Holcim (US) Inc
Defendant:
Limerock Materials LLC and Michael P Vahl
Holcim (US) Inc v. Limerock Materials LLC et al
as 5:2011mc00025
Plaintiff:
Holcim (US) Inc
Defendant:
Limerock Materials LLC and Michael P Vahl
Portland Cement Association, et al v. EPA
as 11-1245
Petitioner:
Portland Cement Association, Ash Grove Cement Company, CEMEX, Inc. and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Portland Cement Association, et al v. EPA, et al
as 11-1244
Petitioner:
Portland Cement Association, Ash Grove Cement Company, CEMEX, Inc. and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa Perez Jackson
Portland Cement Association, et al v. EPA, et al
as 11-1206
Petitioner:
Portland Cement Association, Ash Grove Cement Company, CEMEX, Inc. and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa Perez Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USA v. Holcim (US) Inc., St. Lawrence Cement Company, LLC
as 1:2011cv01119
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Holcim (US) Inc., St. Lawrence Cement Company, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
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.
