Cases 21 - 28 of 28
CHEVEDDEN v. THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK et al
as 2:2012cv01488
Plaintiff:
JOHN CHEVEDDEN
Defendant:
THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK, MICHAEL R. ODELL, ROBERT H. HOTZ and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
DIPPLE v. ODELL et al
as 2:2012cv01415
Plaintiff:
EDWARD DIPPLE , LINDA DICKENS , JOHN CHEVEDDEN and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL R. ODELL , ROBERT H. HOTZ , IRVIN D. REID and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
ASTOR REALTY TRUST et al v. ODELL et al
as 2:2012cv01417
Plaintiff:
ASTOR BK REALTY TRUST and LINDA DICKENS
Defendant:
MICHAEL R. ODELL, JANE SCACCETTI, JOHN T. SWEETWOOD and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK et al
as 1:2010cv00745
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK and BAJA ,INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 7413
The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack (Inc.) v. Buckner Electric Company et al
as 1:2009cv03351
Plaintiff:
The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack (Inc.)
Defendant:
Buckner Electric Company and Columbia National Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
Type:
Other Statutes
Jesse Villegas v. The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Ja, et al
as 08-80072
Plaintiff - Respondent:
JESSE R. VILLEGAS, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated
Respondent:
JOSE MACHADO
Defendant - Petitioner:
THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant - Respondent:
THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK, a Pennsylvania corporation
Rolon v. Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack
as 3:2007cv00156
Plaintiff:
Gisela Rolon
Defendant:
Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack and Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
HARTCO ENGINEERING V WANG'S INTL
as 04-1480
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant:
HARTCO ENGINEERING, INC.
Defendant-Appellant:
OVERTON'S, INC., PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK, INC., PILOT AUTOMOTIVE, 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.
