Cases 21 - 30 of 203
Bracalente et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
as 5:2022cv04417
Plaintiff:
Robert Bracalente and Boris Gdalevich
Defendant:
Cisco Systems, Inc., The Board of Trustees of Cisco Systems, Inc. and The Administrative Committee of the Cisco Systems, Inc. 401(K) Plan
Amicus Curiae:
American Benefits Council, ERISA Industry Committee, American Retirement Association and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Fleming v. Kellogg Company et al
as 1:2022cv00593
Plaintiff:
Bradley H Fleming and Bradley H. Fleming
Defendant:
Kellogg Company, Board of Directors of the Kellogg Company, ERISA Finance Committee of Kellogg Company and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Michael Alves v. Hewlett-Packard Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Pla, et al
as 22-55621
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL ALVES
Defendant / Appellee:
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPREHENSIVE WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, an ERISA plan and HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a corporation
Defendant:
DOES, 1 through 10
Jackson et al v. National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America Corporation et al
as 2:2022cv00388
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Jackson, Jr and Julia Tolbert-Jackson
Defendant:
National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America Corporation, National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America d/b/a YMCA of the USA, d/b/a YMCA of Birmingham, Kevin Washington and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Rotstain et al v. Trustmark National Bank et al
as 4:2022cv09000
Defendant:
Independent Bank, Trustmark National Bank, The Toronto-Dominion Bank and others
Petitioner:
Bonnie O Habel, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro, Annalisa Mendez and others
Plaintiff:
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Punga Punga Financial Limited and others
Interested Party:
John J Little
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Rotstain et al v. Trustmark National Bank et al
as 4:2022cv00800
Defendant:
Independent Bank, Trustmark National Bank, The Toronto-Dominion Bank and others
Petitioner:
Bonnie O Habel, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro, Annalisa Mendez and others
Plaintiff:
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Punga Punga Financial Limited and others
Interested Party:
John J Little
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
as 1:2021cv03231
Plaintiff:
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, RENOWN HEALTH and others
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, XAVIER BECERRA, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and others
Petitioner:
COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS, PHYSICIANS ADVOCACY INSTITUTE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS and others
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, AMERICA'S ESSENTIAL HOSPITALS and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv09654
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp. et al
as 1:2021cv06072
Plaintiff:
Janet Duke
Defendant:
Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Oakley, Inc., Luxottica Group ERISA Plans Compliance & Investment Committee and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp. et. al.
as 2:2021cv06072
Plaintiff:
Janet Duke
Defendant:
Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Oakley, Inc., Luxottica Group ERISA Plans Compliance & Investment Committee and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
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.
