Cases 31 - 40 of 222
Rowand v. Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2023cv01032
Plaintiff:
Matthew Rowand
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Pimple v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00781
Plaintiff:
Matthew Pimple
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Carnley v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00666
Plaintiff:
Matthew L. Carnley
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Lee v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00571
Plaintiff:
Matthew Lee
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Matthews v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00372
Plaintiff:
Gary Matthews
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
United States of America v. Manacci, et al.
as 1:2023cv00066
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Christopher F. Mannacci, Matthew H. Evenhouse and NGI Clinics LLC
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Fry v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00079
Plaintiff:
Matthew Fry
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Matthews v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00026
Plaintiff:
Raymond Matthews
Defendant:
Davol, Inc., C.R. Bard, Inc. and Becton Dickinson Enterprises, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Utinske v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00015
Plaintiff:
Matthew Utinske
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Fleming v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv03570
Plaintiff:
Matthew Fleming
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
