Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Scott v. Sanofi US Services Inc. et al
as 5:2023cv00659
Defendant:
Sanofi US Services Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc.
Plaintiff:
Mary Ruth Scott
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Rypkema et al v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00993
Plaintiff:
Norbert Rypkema and Ruth Rypkema
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Rypkema et al v. United States of America DO NOT DOCKET ANYTHING FURTHER IN THIS CASE. REFER TO 7:23-cv-993-M
as 4:2023cv00089
Plaintiff:
Norbert Rypkema and Ruth Rypkema
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Newell v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00353
Plaintiff:
Ruth Newell
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Sanchez v. Whitaker
as 1:2020cv00200
Defendant:
William E. Whitaker
Plaintiff:
Ruth Sanchez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Drake et al v. Mentor Worldwide LLC et al
as 3:2020cv00065
Plaintiff:
Melissa Gassaway, Aracely Parra, Teresa Drake and others
Defendant:
Analytic Biosurgical Solutions, Mentor Worldwide LLC, Coloplast Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
MCDANIEL, et al v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., ET AL.
as 1:2018cv00169
Plaintiff:
RUTH KAY MCDANIEL
Defendant:
FIRST TRANSIT, INC. and JOHN DOE AND/OR ABC COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARDIN et al v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC et al
as 1:2016cv00062
Plaintiff:
RUTH AMANDA HARDIN , MICHAEL CLAY , ERIC BIGGS and others
Defendant:
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
High v. ARAMARK Corporation
as 5:2014cv00202
Plaintiff:
Reba Ruth Hill High
Defendant:
ARAMARK Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Holt v. General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
as 5:2013cv00136
Plaintiff:
Ruth B. Holt
Defendant:
General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
