Cases 51 - 60 of 176
Smith v. Peaches of Atlanta Gentlemen's Club et al
as 1:2017cv04741
Plaintiff:
Tiffany Smith
Defendant:
Peaches of Atlanta Gentlemen's Club and Cornelius Stephens
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Smith v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc.
as 2:2017cv00225
Plaintiff:
Tracie Smith
Defendant:
Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bacon et al
as 6:2017cv00134
Plaintiff:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Defendant:
Nicholas S. Bacon and Eric C. Smith
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
SMITH v. ADVANTAGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
as 3:2017cv00128
Plaintiff:
LILY C SMITH
Defendant:
ADVANTAGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1001
Smith v. Forsyth County School District
as 2:2017cv00179
Plaintiff:
Paula Smith
Defendant:
Forsyth County School District
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Booker v. Interactive Learning Systems, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv02893
Plaintiff:
Darryl Booker
Defendant:
Interactive Learning Systems, Inc. and Elmer Smith
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Jones v. Goosebumps, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv02809
Plaintiff:
Cariletta Smith Jones
Defendant:
Goosebumps, Inc., Bruce Dobbs, George Kelly and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Brantley et al v. Smtih et al
as 6:2017cv00089
Plaintiff:
Leroy Brantley, JR , Harold H. Ricks , Roger Smith and others
Defendant:
Handi-House MFG. CO. , Handi-House Financial Corporation , Handi-House Rent to Own, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Southerland v. Kirk's Home Improvements, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv01994
Plaintiff:
John Southerland
Defendant:
Kirk's Home Improvements, Inc. and Kirk A. Smith
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
Smith v. East Cobb Emissions et al
as 1:2017cv01353
Plaintiff:
Thomas S. Smith
Defendant:
East Cobb Emissions and Joseph R. Goss
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 216
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.
