Cases 11 - 20 of 26
Incorrectly Filed
as 4:2019cv04739
Defendant:
Union Pacific Railroad, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Plaintiff:
Leopoldo Mendoza-Gomez and Incorrectly Filed
Cause Of Action: 88 U.S.C. § 8888
Incorrectly Filed
as 4:2019cv04740
Defendant:
Leopoldo Mendoza-Gomez and Union Pacific Railroad, Individually and as Succesor-In-Interest to Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Plaintiff:
Incorrectly Filed
Cause Of Action: 88 U.S.C. § 8888
Mendoza-Gomez v. Union Pacific Railroad Individually and Successor-in-Interest to Southern Pacific Transportation Company
as 4:2019cv04742
Defendant:
Union Pacific Railroad Individually and Successor-in-Interest to Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Plaintiff:
Leopoldo Mendoza-Gomez
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Immel v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
as 1:2018cv02631
Defendant:
Union Pacific Railroad Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Plaintiff:
Kim Immel
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
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
Martin Wells, et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al
as 17-80098
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
MARTIN WELLS, SUSAN WELLS, as Trustrees of the Martin and Susan Wells Revocable Trust and SANDRA L. HINSHAW, as Trustee of the Sandra L. Hinshaw Living Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Respondent:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to Southern Pacific Transportation Company, SFPP, L.P., formerly known as Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and others
James Mooney, et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al
as 17-80078
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
JAMES PAUL MOONEY and LAZY COYOTE RV VILLAGE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Respondent:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, SFPP, L.P., formerly known as SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, Inc., formerly known as SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES, Inc., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and others
Charles Serrano, et al v. UPRR, et al
as 16-56562
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,, BARBARA SLOAN, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC and others
Defendant - Appellant:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Defendant:
SFPP, L.P., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC.
Charles Serrano, et al v. UPRR, et al
as 16-80101
Plaintiff - Respondent:
CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,, BARBARA SLOAN, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Defendant:
SFPP, L.P., other Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Inc other Southern Pacific Pipelines Inc, KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC.
Amicus Curiae - Pending:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
WINTER v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
as 2:2010cv80960
Plaintiff:
LERLOW WINTER
Defendant:
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
