Cases 1 - 9 of 9
TIPAN MENDOZA v. SILVER TREE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE CO. INC. et al
as 2:2023cv03214
Plaintiff:
SEGUNDO JUAN JOSE TIPAN MENDOZA
Defendant:
SILVER TREE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE CO. INC., JOSEPH DONNOLO and PAUL DONNOLO
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
TIPAN MENDOZA v. SILVER TREE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE CO. INC. et al
as 3:2023cv03214
Plaintiff:
SEGUNDO JUAN JOSE TIPAN MENDOZA
Defendant:
SILVER TREE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE CO. INC., JOSEPH DONNOLO and PAUL DONNOLO
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
MENDOZA v. MICHAEL ROBERTS CLASSIC BODY WORKS, INC. et al
as 2:2017cv01768
Plaintiff:
EDGAR MENDOZA
Defendant:
MICHAEL ROBERTS CLASSIC BODY WORKS, INC. and MICHAEL ROBERTS
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
REYES v. CLUB 1199 et al
as 2:2016cv02800
Plaintiff:
YRMA REYES
Defendant:
CLUB 1199 and MARIO MENDOZA
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
MENDOZA et al v. HAYNE LIM, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv06676
Plaintiff:
CRYSTAL MENDOZA , ANSELMO SANCHEZ , LUIS PALACIOS-ROMERO and others
Defendant:
HAYNE LIM, INC., BAGEL 23 INC., MY BAGEL HEAVEN INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
VASQUEZ v. GARDEN STATE CLEANING CORP. et al
as 2:2015cv00883
Plaintiff:
DARWIN JOEL VASQUEZ
Defendant:
GARDEN STATE CLEANING CORP. and LUIS A. MENDOZA
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
MENDOZA v. UNITED SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2013cv07328
Plaintiff:
JUAN MENDOZA
Defendant:
UNITED SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
MENDOZA v. MAPAT AUTO BODY, LLC et al
as 2:2013cv04052
Plaintiff:
EDGAR E. MENDOZA
Defendant:
MAPAT AUTO BODY, LLC, PATRICK ASOEGWU, MANUEL ARREVILLAGA and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
MENDOZA v. PENIEL AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC et al
as 2:2012cv03780
Plaintiff:
EDGAR EDUARDO MENDOZA
Defendant:
PENIEL AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC, ARMANDO SILVA, RUI SILVA and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206
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.
