Cases 41 - 50 of 92
MANCERA v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LLC et al
as 2:2017cv08396
Defendant:
WAL MART STORES, INC. , PROCTOR AND GAMBLE LLC , JOHN DOES 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
MARIA RAZO MANCERA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal- Product Liability
Gardner v. The Proctor and Gamble Company/Olay
as 1:2017cv04701
Plaintiff:
Helen Gardner
Defendant:
The Proctor and Gamble Company/Olay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Ratshidaho v. AstraZeneca LP et al
as MOW/6:16-cv-03417
Plaintiff:
Isaac Ratshidaho
Defendant:
AstraZeneca LP , Proctor and Gamble Company , Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company and others
Burton v. Proctor and Gamble Company
as 3:2017cv01190
Plaintiff:
Christopher Burton
Defendant:
Proctor and Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sjostedt v. Proctor and Gamble Company et al
as 3:2017cv00782
Plaintiff:
Margaret M Sjostedt
Defendant:
Proctor and Gamble Company , Procter and Gamble Retirement Plans and Aon Hewitt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROOKS et al v. PROCTOR AND GAMBLE INC
as 5:2016cv00553
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN J ROOKS and RABBI ENTRAPRENAURS OF AMERICA LLC
Defendant:
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE INC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ratshidaho v. AstraZeneca LP et al
as 6:2016cv03417
Plaintiff:
Isaac Ratshidaho
Defendant:
AstraZeneca LP, Astra USA Inc., AstraZeneca AB and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Danita Brown v. Autumn Kruse
as 15-4121
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANITA P. BROWN
Defendant - Appellee:
AUTUMN KRUSE, Proctor and Gamble Sr. Counsel
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv00884
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Leirer v. The Proctor and Gamble Company, et al
as 4:2015cv00122
Plaintiff:
Gary Leirer
Defendant:
The Proctor and Gamble Company and The Proctor and Gamble Disability Benefit Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
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.
