Cases 1 - 10 of 54
In re: James Esseks, et al
as 24-11618
Petitioner:
In re: JAMES D. ESSEKS, CARL CHARLES, LATISHA FAULKS and others
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
McLane Company, Inc. et al v. Cargill, Inc. et al
as 0:2023cv01050
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Cargill Inc, Cargill Protein and others
Plaintiff:
McLane Company, Inc. doing business as McLane/Southwest doing business as McLane/Southeast doing business as McLane Southeast doing business as McLane/Northwest doing business as McLane/Southeast Dothan doing business as McLane/High Plains doing busi, McLane/Mid-Atlantic, Inc. doing business as McLane/Carolina doing business as McLane Mid-Atlantic, McLane/Midwest, Inc. doing business as McLane/Cumberland doing business as McLane/Midwest doing business as McLane/Ozark and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
McLane Company, Inc. et al v. Cargill, Inc. et al
as 9:2023cv80519
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Cargill, Inc., Cargill Protein and others
Plaintiff:
McLane Company, Inc. doing business as McLane/Southwest doing business as McLane/Southeast doing business as McLane Southeast doing business as McLane/Northwest doing business as McLane/Southeast - Dothan doing business as McLane/High Plains doing bu, McLane/Mid-Atlantic, Inc. doing business as McLane/Carolina doing business as McLane Mid-Atlantic, McLane/Midwest, Inc. doing business as McLane/Cumberland doing business as McLane/Midwest doing business as McLane/Ozark and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0001 Antitrust Litigation
McLane Company, Inc. et al v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al
as 0:2023cv00472
Plaintiff:
McLane Company, Inc. doing business as McLane/Southwest doing business as McLane/Southeast doing business as McLane Southeast doing business as McLane/Northwest doing business as McLane/Southeast Dothan doing business as McLane/High Plains doing busi, McLane/Mid-Atlantic, Inc. doing business as McLane/Carolina doing business as McLane Mid-Atlantic, McLane/Midwest, Inc. doing business as McLane/Cumberland doing business as McLane/Midwest doing business as McLane/Ozark and others
Defendant:
Agri Stats, Inc., Clemens Food Group, LLC, The Clemens Family Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
McLane Company, Inc. et al v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al
as 9:2023cv80217
Plaintiff:
McLane Company, Inc. doing business as McLane/Southwest doing business as McLane/Southeast doing business as McLane Southeast doing business as McLane/Northwest doing business as McLane/Southeast Dothan doing business as McLane/High Plains doing busi, McLane/Mid-Atlantic, Inc. doing business as McLane/Carolina doing business as McLane Mid-Atlantic, McLane/Midwest, Inc. doing business as McLane/Cumberland doing business as McLane/Midwest doing business as McLane/Ozark and others
Defendant:
Agri Stats, Inc., Clemens Food Group, LLC, The Clemens Family Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0001 Antitrust Litigation
In re Amie Adelia Vague, et al (Panel: Judge Watkins, Judge Proctor, Judge Beaverstock)
as 2:2022mc03977
In Re:
Amie Adelia Vague, Jeffrey P. Doss, Melody H. Eagan and others
Jones v. South Jersey Industries, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv03424
Plaintiff:
Christopher Jones
Defendant:
South Jersey Industries, Inc., Michael J. Renna, Sarah M. Barpoulis and others
Brining v. South Jersey Industries, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv03384
Plaintiff:
Nathan Brining
Defendant:
South Jersey Industries, Inc., Joseph M. Rigby, Sarah M. Barpoulis and others
Kaufmann v. South Jersey Industries, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv03255
Plaintiff:
David Kaufmann
Defendant:
South Jersey Industries, Inc., Sarah M. Barpoulis, Victor A. Fortkiewicz and others
Finger v. South Jersey Industries, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv03226
Plaintiff:
Katherine Finger
Defendant:
South Jersey Industries, Inc., Sarah M. Barpoulis, Victor A. Fortkiewicz 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.
