Cases 31 - 40 of 88
Thomas E. Perez v. Hibachi City Buffet, Inc., et al
as 5:2016cv00857
Defendant:
Honglin Chen, Wei Chen, Wu Chen and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas E Perez
Ramon Romero v. Hometown Buffet, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv00830
Plaintiff:
Ramon Romero
Defendant:
Hometown Buffet, Inc, OCB Restaurant Company, LLC, Hometown Buffet, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
HAN v. IMPERIAL BUFFET INC. et al
as 1:2015cv00311
Plaintiff:
GEN WANG HAN
Defendant:
IMPERIAL BUFFET INC., DUKE CHEN, "JOHN DOE" 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Garcia v. Hometown Buffet, Inc.
as 1:2015cv11458
Plaintiff:
Blanca Lily Garcia
Defendant:
Hometown Buffet, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lopez et al v. New China Country Buffet Inc et al
as 2:2015cv01449
Defendant:
New China Country Buffet Inc , Quin Xi Zheng and Lin Yu Lin
Plaintiff:
Juan Lopez and Marta Roque
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Garcia v. Chinatown Buffet, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv10361
Plaintiff:
Bruno Garcia
Defendant:
Chinatown Buffet, Inc. and Shi Tan Zheng
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Garza-Meza v. Royal Best Buffet Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv07099
Plaintiff:
Gregorio Garza-Meza
Defendant:
Royal Best Buffet Inc. and Kong Bin Wang
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
VASQUEZ SANTIAGO et al v. LUCKY LODI BUFFET INC. et al
as 2:2015cv06147
Plaintiff:
GABINO VASQUEZ SANTIAGO and FAUSTO VASQUEZ LUIS
Defendant:
LUCKY LODI BUFFET INC., LODI INTERNATIONAL BUFFET INC., LI SONG ZHOU and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Perez v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc. et al
as 5:2015cv01577
Plaintiff:
Thomas E. Perez
Defendant:
Cathedral Buffet, Inc. and Ernest Angley
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
US Department of Labor v. Li et al
as 4:2015cv00136
Plaintiff:
United States Department of Labor
Defendant:
Li Ying Li, Jian Yum Zheng, King Buffet of IA, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
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.
