Cases 71 - 80 of 430
Aguilar et al v. Advanced MEPF Services Corp. et al
as 1:2019cv05014
Defendant:
Kristopher Shaw, Cross Island Mechanical Management Corporation, Project Strategix, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Juan Aguilar
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Cook v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company Inc et al
as 2:2019cv01591
Defendant:
LV Shaw, TF Bartley and Norfolk Southern Railway Company Inc
Plaintiff:
Danny M Cook
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 20109
MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE et al v. BEUTLER, INC.
as 1:2019cv03364
Defendant:
BEUTLER, INC. D/B/A GEORGE J. SHAW CONSTRUCTION CO. and BEUTLER, INC.
Plaintiff:
INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS and MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Shaw v. NorthPointe Resources, Inc.
as 1:2019cv05212
Defendant:
NorthPointe Resources, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Maiko Shaw
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938
Shaw v. City of Bremerton Police Department
as 3:2019cv05640
Defendant:
City of Bremerton Police Department
Plaintiff:
Frank Shaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Lossi v. Shaw, et al
as 2:2019cv10937
Plaintiff:
Suzanne V Lossi
Not Yet Classified:
Tulane Educational Fund Administration
Defendant:
Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, John Shaw and John Clarke
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Shaw et al v. Stix Trucking, LLC et al
as 5:2019cv00858
Plaintiff:
Adolfo Reynoso, Mark Bartley and Jimmy E. Shaw
Defendant:
Mario Samaniego, Jr. and Stix Trucking, LLC
Shaw et al v. Galo Equipment & Construction, LLC et al
as 5:2019cv00859
Defendant:
Anthony Bradford Galo, Jr. and Galo Equipment & Construction, LLC
Plaintiff:
Mark Bartley and Jimmy E. Shaw
Garlick v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv10987
Plaintiff:
Matthew S. Garlick
Defendant:
Albertsons Companies, LLC, New Albertsons, Inc., Standard Insurance Co. and others
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.
