Cases 31 - 40 of 43
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Performance Caulking & Waterproofing Inc.
as 3:2009cv05879
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Performance Caulking & Waterproofing Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc.
as 3:2009cv03634
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Second Generation Roofing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Ace Roofing Company
as 3:2009cv02766
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Ace Roofing Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund, Bay Area Counties Roofing Industry Promotion et al v. Royce B Peterson Roofing Inc
as 3:2009cv01812
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund, Bay Area Counties Roofing Industry Promotion and Bruce Lau
Defendant:
Royce B Peterson Roofing Inc
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits
CALIFORNIA SHOCK TRAUMA AIR RESCUE
as 2:2009at00048
Plaintiff:
CALIFORNIA SHOCK TRAUMA AIR RESCUE
Defendant:
State Compensation Insurance Fund, ESIS, INC., Zurich American Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
California Shock Trauma v. State Compensation Insurance, et al
as 2:2009cv00090
Defendant:
Truck Insurance Exchange, City of Watsonville, FirstComp Underwriters Group and others
Amicus Curiae:
Med Trans Corporation, Air Methods Corporation, California Association of Air Medical Services and others
Plaintiff:
California Shock Trauma Air Rescue
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Empire Contracting Roof Service
as 3:2009cv00048
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Empire Contracting Roof Service
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Straightline Caulking & Waterproofing, Inc.
as 3:2008cv05557
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Straightline Caulking & Waterproofing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Petersen
as 3:2008cv02140
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Douglas James Petersen
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Royce B. Peterson Roofing, Inc.
as 3:2008cv01612
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund and others
Defendant:
Royce B. Peterson Roofing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
