Cases 1 - 10 of 19
KITCHEN v. CHAN et al
as 2:2024cv01257
Plaintiff:
ROSEMARY KITCHEN
Defendant:
ELBERT CHAN, 7248 ADULT DAY CARE, INC. doing business as ASSURED CARE CENTER DAYCARE and 7248 HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3730 Qui Tam False Claims Act
KIRSCH v. CHAN
as 2:2023cv02751
Plaintiff:
CHAVA C KIRSCH
Defendant:
KEAN M CHAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Chan v. Scartine
as 2:2022cv01633
Plaintiff:
Kevin Chan
Defendant:
William Scartine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
LEWIS V. UPMC
as 2:2019cv00865
Defendant:
UPMC MAGEE HOSPITAL/CLINIC, UPMC MAGEE HOSPITAL/CLINICS, EMILY REDMAN and others
Plaintiff:
TRACY L. LEWIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
BEHERNS et al v. ARCONIC, INC.
as 2:2019cv02664
Plaintiff:
ALK HAXHISEFA, PAULOS TEKLE, HANIFE MACIT and others
Defendant:
ARCONIC, INC., ALCOA INC, SAINT-GOBAIN CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
TINKLE et al v. MERCK & CO, INC. et al
as 2:2018cv05428
Plaintiff:
CHAN TINKLE and THERESA TINKLE
Defendant:
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. and MERCK & CO, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CHAN v. TRUSTGARD INSURANCE COMPANY
as 5:2016cv05756
Plaintiff:
DAVID CHAN
Defendant:
TRUSTGARD INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARKER et al v. CHAN et al
as 3:2015cv00277
Plaintiff:
IAN HARKER , CORRADINA BALDACCHINO and GH
Defendant:
JOHN O. CHAN, M.D. , CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER , CONEMAUGH PHYSICIAN GROUP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
NEU v. MANVILLE CORPORATION ASBESTOS DISEASE COMPENSATION FUND
as 2:2011cv54626
Plaintiff:
CHAN FAT NEU
Defendant:
MANVILLE CORPORATION ASBESTOS DISEASE COMPENSATION FUND
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
NEU v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
as 5:2011cv53965
Plaintiff:
CHAN FAT NEU
Defendant:
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
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.
