Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Board of Trustees of Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Sanchez
as 3:2022cv09029
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Board of Trustees of Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Pension Trust Fund, Board of Trustees of Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Apprentice Training Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Abel Sanchez, North River Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1145 E.R.I.S.A.
Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Abel Sanchez
as 2:2022cv06596
Plaintiff:
Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Pensioners and Surviving Spouses Health Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Abel Sanchez an individual doing business as SRC Supreme Refrigeration Concepts doing business as Supreme Refrigeration Concepts
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Guevara-Morales et al v. Sanchez Forestry, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv00052
Plaintiff:
Aaron Martinez-Mendoza, Eduardo Mosqueda-Castillo, Carlo Azael Zavala-Ramirez and others
Defendant:
Sanchez Forestry, Inc. and Abel Sanchez
Sanchez et al v. General Electric Company et al
as 2:2016cv00050
Plaintiff:
Abel Sanchez , Lamont Moore and Derrick Corpus
Defendant:
General Electric Company, GE Oil & Gas, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Logging Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Sotarriba et al v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC et al
as 1:2009cv05425
Plaintiff:
Francisco Sotarriba , Aurelio Soria Garcia , Moises Pastor and others
Defendant:
53rd Street Partners, LLC , Stefano Fritella , Pier Mario Delrosso and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
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.
