Cases 21 - 30 of 48
Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv05813
Plaintiff:
Dimitri Dixon
Defendant:
Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
SELTZ v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.
as 1:2018cv02092
Plaintiff:
RYAN SELTZ
Defendant:
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Pontones v. San Jose Restaurant, Incorporated et al
as 5:2018cv00219
Plaintiff:
Laura Pontones
Defendant:
San Jose Restaurant, Incorporated, San Jose Management, Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Wakefield v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
as 1:2017cv08543
Plaintiff:
Sean Wakefield
Defendant:
Urban Outfitters, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Alexis et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corp
as 2:2017cv01159
Plaintiff:
Mark Alexis , Victor Baff , Dorian Botley and others
Defendant:
Citgo Petroleum Corp
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Wakefield v. Life Insurance Company of North America
as 3:2017cv00455
Plaintiff:
Beverly J. Wakefield
Defendant:
Life Insurance Company of North America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Searl v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
as 1:2017cv04236
Plaintiff:
James Searl
Defendant:
Cushman & Wakefield Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Searl v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
as 1:2017cv02665
Defendant:
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
Plaintiff:
James Searl
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Lane v. Montefiore Wakefield
as 16-3566
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Dawn Cherise Lane
Defendant - Appellee:
1199 SEIU Healthcare Workers Labor Union
Defendant:
Montefiore Wakefield
MICHAEL R. FANNING v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv01486
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL R. FANNING
Defendant:
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC. , CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD NATIONAL CORPORATION , CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF WASHINGTON, D.C. INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1145
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.
