Cases 31 - 40 of 87
McCullough v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00232
Plaintiff:
Alexander McCullough
Defendant:
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. and Sunglass Hut Trading, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Colosi v. Anthem Life Insurance Company et al
as 6:2017cv00238
Plaintiff:
Stephen Colosi
Defendant:
Anthem Life Insurance Company and Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00888
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv02055
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
FRIEST v. LUXOTTICA GROUP SPA. et al
as 2:2016cv03327
Plaintiff:
BLANE FRIEST
Defendant:
LUXOTTICA GROUP SPA. , LUXOTTICA USA, LLC , LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
PERKINS v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC.
as 1:2016cv21764
Plaintiff:
CHARLES PERKINS
Defendant:
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00151
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06297
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
Money v. Johnson & Johnson et al
as 3:2015cv03213
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson , Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. and Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. d/b/a Lenscrafters, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Stephen Money
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ACP IP, LLC et al v. OAKLEY INC. et al
as 1:2015cv20488
Plaintiff:
ACP IP, LLC and Armando Perez
Defendant:
OAKLEY INC., OAKLEY SALES CORP. and LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
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.
