Cases 1 - 10 of 291
Barrett v. Local 804 Union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
as 24-1139
Plaintiff:
JAHMIL O. BARRETT
Defendant:
LOCAL 804 UNION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS (IBT) and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC.
ENDRES v. AIR CANADA, INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00883
Plaintiff:
STEVEN ENDRES
Defendant:
AIR CANADA, INC., AIR FRANCE-KLM S.A., ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
United Parcel Service Inc v. NLRB
as 24-1530
Petitioner:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor:
ROBERT C. ATKINSON, JR.
NLRB v. United Parcel Service Inc
as 24-1531
Petitioner:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor:
ROBERT C. ATKINSON, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC
Raj PatelIn re: Raj Patel
as 24-1337
Petitioner:
In re: RAJ K. PATEL
Respondent:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC
Baker v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
as 23-4364
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JUSTIN BAKER
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. (UPS)
Endres v. Moody et al
as 1:2023cv12051
Plaintiff:
Steven P. Endres and Pro se litigant Steven P. Endres
Defendant:
Ashley Moody, Ken Paxton, City and County of San Francisco, California and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Shaw v. United Parcel Service Inc et al
as 3:2023cv01996
Plaintiff:
Van Shaw
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Inc and Rene G. Acosta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-15448
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Tamiko Peele, et al v. 17th Judicial Circuit Court Broward County, et al
as 23-10913
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TAMIKO N. PEELE and ROBERT L. WALKER
Defendant / Appellee:
17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT BROWARD COUNTY, DOES 1-3, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 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.
