Cases 51 - 60 of 149
Vaiz v. United Parcel Service, Inc et al
as 4:2018cv00691
Plaintiff:
Louis Vaiz
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Vaiz v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv00689
Plaintiff:
Louis Vaiz
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc. and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Conner v. Teamsters Union Local No. 665 et al
as 3:2017cv05047
Plaintiff:
Brian Conner
Defendant:
Teamsters Union Local No. 665 and United Parcel Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
Craig Ogans v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv02443
Plaintiff:
Craig Ogans
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Shelly Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
as 2:2017cv01626
Plaintiff:
Shelly Clark
Defendant:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and United Parcel Service Flexible Benefits Plan
Shelly Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
as 5:2017cv00385
Plaintiff:
Shelly Clark
Defendant:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and United Parcel Service Flexible Benefits Plan
Reyes v. United Parcel Service, Inc et al
as 5:2016cv02782
Plaintiff:
Mario Reyes
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc and UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cantrell Jackson Sr. v. United Parcel Service Inc, et al
as 5:2015cv01189
Defendant:
Does
Plaintiff:
Cantrell Jackson, Sr
UPS:
United Parcel Service Inc
Paclik v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
as 3:2013cv02550
Plaintiff:
Charles Thomas Paclik
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Paclik v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
as 3:2012cv05839
Plaintiff:
Charles Thomas Paclik
Defendant:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and United Parcel Service Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1145 E.R.I.S.A.
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.
