Cases 31 - 40 of 41
Acosta v. Parham, et al
as 3:2017cv00596
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
Stephen Hart Parham and Dominion Paving & Sealing Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Acosta v. Woo Lae Oak Food Group, LLC et al
as 1:2017cv00785
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
Woo Lae Oak Food Group, LLC, Hang Nam Paik and Kyung Hee Paik
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Acosta v. Medine Nur, Inc., et al
as 2:2017cv00359
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta , Secretary of Labor and United States Department of Labor
Defendant:
Medine Nur, Inc., Osman Aksu and Lisa Aksu
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Alexander Acosta v. JM Osaka, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00559
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
JM Osaka, Inc. , IK Murusaki, Inc. , In Ky Kim and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv00531
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Chavarria Canales v. Acosta Villalobos
as 3:2015cv00189
Petitioner:
Norman Javier Chavarria Canales
Respondent:
Reina Isabel Acosta Villalobos
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 11601
Stich v. Acosta, Inc.
as 3:2015cv00098
Plaintiff:
Courtney V. Stich
Defendant:
Acosta, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Morales et al v. Econo Commercial Painting, LLC et al
as 1:2010cv00360
Plaintiff:
Jose Luis Morales , Jose Isreal Rivas Acosta , Hugo Claros and others
Defendant:
Econo Commercial Painting, LLC and James Kim
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Showalter v. Johnson et al
as 7:2008cv00276
Plaintiff:
Mark Todd Showalter
Defendant:
Gene Johnson, Tracy Ray, J. W. Armentrout and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Aslinger et al v. McPeak et al
as 7:2007cv00529
Plaintiff:
Matthew Brian Aslinger, Tony Ray Riddle, Kevin Lee Dudley and others
Defendant:
Gerald M. McPeak and Gene M. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
