Cases 51 - 60 of 85
Gary Caudill, et al v. Sears Transition Pay Plan, et al
as 11-1602
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GARY CAUDILL, SYLVESTOR J. DEROSA, STEVEN D. FORD, SR. and others
Defendant - Appellant:
SEARS TRANSITION PAY PLAN, SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED and others
Ramon Perez v. Sears Roebuck and Co et al
as 2:2011cv03527
Defendant:
Does, Sears Holding Corp and Sears Roebuck and Co
Plaintiff:
Ramon Perez
Casida v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al
as 1:2011cv02110
Plaintiff:
Candace Casida
Defendant:
Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Co
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Gary Caudill, et al v. Sears Transition Pay Plan, et al
as 10-2450
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GARY CAUDILL, SYLVESTOR J. DEROSA, STEVEN D. FORD, SR. and others
Defendant - Appellant:
SEARS TRANSITION PAY PLAN, SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED and others
Corrado v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
as 4:2010cv00443
Plaintiff:
Charles D Corrado
Defendant:
Sears Roebuck and Company and Sears Holdings Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
as 10-20360
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD CHAMBERS
Defendant - Appellee:
SEARS ROEBUCK & CO
Barnard v. Sears Transition Pay Plan et al
as 2:2010cv11591
Plaintiff:
Hassel Barnard
Defendant:
Sears Transition Pay Plan, Sears Roebuck and Co. and Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1101
Rodriguez v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al
as 3:2010cv01268
Plaintiff:
Patrick Rodriguez
Defendant:
Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations
Jose Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck and Co et al
as 2:2010cv01383
Defendant:
Does and Sears Roebuck and Co
Plaintiff:
Jose Jimenez
Jose Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck and Co et al
as 2:2010cv01076
Defendant:
Does and Sears Roebuck and Co
Plaintiff:
Jose Jimenez
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.
