Cases 21 - 30 of 134
Solomon v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2023cv14553
Plaintiff:
Detrina Solomon
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Stroud et al v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2023cv14309
Plaintiff:
Althea Stroud, Amber Stoer, Heather Shaffer and others
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Makris et al v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2023cv05093
Plaintiff:
John Makris and Karen Makris
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1362 ERISA
Stanford Health Care v. Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois and d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas et al
as 1:2023cv04744
Plaintiff:
Stanford Health Care
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois and d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Does 1 through 25 Inclusive and Health Care Service Corporation a Mutual Legal Reserve Co. doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois & Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
K. et al v. Health Care Service Corp.
as 1:2023cv00594
Plaintiff:
Robert K., Monica K. and John K.
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corp. dba Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois and Health Care Service Corporation doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Dignity Health v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2022cv06969
Plaintiff:
DIGNITY HEALTH, a California not-for-profit healthcare corporation and Dignity Health a California not-for-profit healthcare corporation doing business as Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital doing business as Mercy San Juan Medical Center doing business as Mark Twain Medical Center San Andreas doing business as Saint Franci
Defendant:
HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Co. d.b.a. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, Health Care Service Corporation a Mutual Legal Reserve Co doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and Does 1-25
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
John Muir Health v. Health Care Service Corporation, et al.
as 1:2022cv06963
Plaintiff:
John Muir Health, a California not-for-profit healthcare corporation and John Muir Health
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Co. d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Health Care Service Corporation a Mutual Legal Reserve Co. doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
The Regents of the University of California v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2022cv06960
Plaintiff:
The Regents of the University of California, a California constitutional corporation, on behalf of its UCLA Health System and The Regents of the University of California
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and Health Care Service Corporation a Mutual Legal Reserve Co. doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Leonard S. v. Health Care Service Corporation
as 1:2022cv06038
Plaintiff:
Leonard S.
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois and Health Care Service Corporation doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Memorial Health Services v. Health Care Service Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv05577
Plaintiff:
Memorial Health Services
Defendant:
Health Care Service Corporation and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
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.
