Cases 11 - 18 of 18
HydroFlame Production, L.L.C. et al v. HydroFlame Technologies, L.L.C. et al
as 3:2012cv00800
Plaintiff:
Donald W. Doyle, Jr. and HydroFlame Production, L.L.C.
Defendant:
HydroFlame Technologies, L.L.C., James Landry and Dandina N. Rao
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157 (c)(1) Findings, Concl. & Proposed Judgment
HydroFlame Production, L.L.C. et al v. HydroFlame Technologies, L.L.C. et al
as 2:2012cv02835
Plaintiff:
HydroFlame Production, L.L.C. and Donald W. Doyle, Jr.
Defendant:
Hydroflame Technologies, L.L.C. , James Landry and Dandina N. Rao
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157 (c)(1) Findings, Concl. & Proposed Judgment
Robbins et al v. KS Janitorial Services, Inc. et al
as 8:2011cv02853
Plaintiff:
Steven Robbins , Charles J. Sloan , Ashley Letchworth and others
Defendant:
KS Janitorial Services, Inc. , E & A Cleaning Incorporated and Jae Soo Kang
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Hydroflame Production, L.L.C. et al v. Hydroflame Technologies, L.L.C. et al
as 2:2011cv00677
Plaintiff:
Hydroflame Production, L.L.C. and Donald W. Doyle, Jr.
Defendant:
Hydroflame Technologies, L.L.C. , James Landry and Dandina N. Rao
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Nathaniel Landry v. Michael Astrue
as 10-35407
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHANIEL JAMES LANDRY
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security
Terrence Landry v. James Tilton
as 09-17585
Petitioner - Appellant:
TERRENCE JAMES LANDRY
Respondent - Appellee:
JAMES E. TILTON
Landry v. Tilton
as 2:2007cv01311
Petitioner:
Terrence James Landry
Respondent:
James Tilton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bacque et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corp et al
as 2:2007cv01053
Plaintiff:
Karen Bacque, Joseph Bartucci, Jr, Joseph Brown and others
Defendant:
Citgo Petroleum Corp, Global Pollution Services L L C, Marine Spill Response Corp and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1319 Pollutants & Permit Violations
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.
