Cases 41 - 50 of 202
Howell v. Rossini North America, LLC
as 1:2019cv02540
Defendant:
Rossini North America, LLC
Plaintiff:
John Howell
Tunstill et al v. Brown et al
as 1:2019cv00365
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati and Kyle Brown
Plaintiff:
Courtney Cooper, Demarco Tunstill and Carrie Howell
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Tunstill et al v. Brown et al
as 1:2019oe00365
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati and Kyle Brown
Plaintiff:
Courtney Cooper, Demarco Tunstill and Carrie Howell
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Tunstill et al v. City Of Cincinnati
as 1:2019oe00364
Plaintiff:
Kyle Brown, Courtney Cooper, Demarco Tunstill and others
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Tunstill et al v. City Of Cincinnati
as 1:2019cv00366
Plaintiff:
Kyle Brown, Courtney Cooper, Demarco Tunstill and others
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Tunstill et al v. City Of Cincinnati
as 1:2019cv00364
Plaintiff:
Kyle Brown, Courtney Cooper, Demarco Tunstill and others
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Hampton et al v. McDermott International Inc et al
as 2:2019cv00200
Plaintiff:
Veronica Hampton, Sergio Hernandez, Ashley Price and others
Defendant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron, Co., McDermott International, Inc., McDermott International Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
THRASH et al v. TADLOCK ROOFING INC
as 4:2019cv00038
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW THRASH, MARC EARNEST, NICHOLAS HICKEY and others
Defendant:
TADLOCK ROOFING, INC. and TADLOCK ROOFING INC
Howell v. Daewon America, Inc. (CONSENT)
as 2:2019cv00013
Plaintiff:
Devin Howell
Defendant:
Daewon America, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
James Howell v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC et al
as 2:2018cv10314
Plaintiff:
James Howell
Defendant:
99 Cents Only Stores LLC, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
