Cases 11 - 20 of 73
Bateman et al v. Armstrong International, Inc. et al
as 0:2020cv61952
Defendant:
Johnson Controls, Inc., Pecora Corporation, Crane Co. and others
Plaintiff:
Dorothy Bateman and David Bateman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Sharon Whitehead v. Aurora Pump Company
as 20-1676
Defendant / Appellee:
FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Compnay, AURORA PUMP COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED and others
Defendant:
UNITED CONVEYOR CORPORATION, STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS USA LLC, f/k/a Peerless Pumps Co., MCNALLY INDUSTRIES, INC., successor-in-interest to NORTHERN FIRE APPARATUS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHARON K. WHITEHEAD, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of JAMES T. WHITEHEAD, Deceased
Christopher Clarke et al v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation et al
as 2:2020cv00591
Defendant:
PENTAIR VALVES & CONTROLS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest 10 KEYSTONE VALVES & CONTROLS, INC.), Gardner Denver, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Clarke and Clarke Cheryl
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Turner, Jr. et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
as 1:2019cv12458
Defendant:
Fort Kent Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Dunham-Bush, Inc., Parker-Hannafin Corporation as Successor to EIS Automotive Corporation, Viking Pump, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Sally Turner and Donald Turner, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
James Laukat et al v. ABB, Inc., et al.
as 2:2019cv09436
Defendant:
DCo LLC, f/k/a and individually as successor in interest to Dana Companies LLC, Victor Corporation, Victor Gaskets and Victor Manufacturing and Gasket Company, OReilly Auto Enterprises, LLC f/k/a CSK Auto, Inc. individually and as successor in interest to Grand Auto, Inc. and Kragen Auto Parts, SPX Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Bear Automotive Service Equipment Company and others
Plaintiff:
Misun Laukat and James Laukat
Petitioner:
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal - Personal Injury
Lee v. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv11284
Defendant:
Viking Pump, Inc., HBW Industries, Inc. f/k/a The Hodge Boiler Works, Spirax Sarco, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Barbara F Lee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
McIsaac v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp et al
as 1:2019cv10282
Defendant:
York International Corporation, Viking Pump, Inc., Electro Dynamic Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
John T McIsaac and Irene McIsaac
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 pl
Darrell Connor v. Covil Corporation
as 19-1015
Defendant / Appellee:
DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, f/k/a Daniel Construction Company, Inc. and COVIL CORPORATION
Defendant:
GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED, DANA COMPANIES, LLC, SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO WARNER BRAKE AND CLUTCH COMPANY, INC, FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC, WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DARRELL A. CONNOR, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Charles Franklin Connor, Deceased
BKK Working Group et al v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv05836
Plaintiff:
Rohr, Inc., Univar USA Inc., Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC and others
Defendant:
Ciba Geigy Corp., Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp., Friction Inc. and others
Petitioner:
Barry Wright Controls
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses
Martinez et al v. Viad Corp. et al
as 1:2016cv00619
Defendant:
Viad Corp. , Alfa Laval, Inc. , Allis-Chalmers Pump, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Buda Company and others
Plaintiff:
Aurelio Martinez and Sandra Martinez
Cross_claimant:
Crane Company, individually and on behalf of Deming Company
Cross_defendant:
Crane Company, individually and on behalf of Deming Company , Alfa Laval, Inc. , Allis-Chalmers Pump, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Buda Company 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.
