Cases 11 - 20 of 42
ASI, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing
as 19-1834
Defendant:
MANLEY TOYS, LTD., a Hong Kong, China corporation, dba Manley Toys, dba ToyQuest, MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, FINGERHUT DIRECT MARKETING, INC., a Delaware corporation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ASI, INC., a Minnesota corporation, fka Aviva Sports, Inc.
Respondent / Appellee:
AQUAWOOD LLC, BRIAN DUBINSKY, PARK LANE SOLUTIONS LTD. and others
Tina Lauray, et al v. Menard, Inc.
as 19-1010
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TINA LAURAY and LAWRENCE LAURAY
Defendant / Appellee:
MENARD, INC.
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv00434
Defendant:
Menard, Inc., Kmart Corporation, Aquawood, L.L.C. and others
Petitioner:
Manley Toy Direct L.L.C.
Plaintiff:
Aviva Sports, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc., et al
as 2:2018mc00089
Defendant:
Manley Toys Ltd., Aquawood LLC, K-Mart Corporation and others
Not Classified By Court:
ASI Inc
Plaintiff:
Aviva Sports, Inc.
Menard, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
as 3:2018cv00376
Plaintiff:
Menard, Inc.
Defendant:
National Labor Relations Board
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Rikkers v. Menard Inc
as 2:2017cv01208
Plaintiff:
Timothy Rikkers
Defendant:
Menard Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
John Greene Logistics Company v. Menard, Inc. et al
as 6:2017cv00885
Plaintiff:
John Greene Logistics Company
Defendant:
Menard, Inc. and Florisin, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Rediehs Freightlines Inc v. Menard Inc et al
as 2:2016cv00136
Plaintiff:
Rediehs Freightlines Inc
Defendant:
Menard Inc, Lowe's Home Centers LLC and Blain Supply Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
AVIVA SPORTS, INC. v. FINGERHUT DIRECT MARKETING, INC. et al
as 2:2016mc00029
Defendant:
MENARD, INC., KMART CORPORATION, MANLEY TOYS, LTD. and others
Plaintiff:
AVIVA SPORTS, INC.
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.
