Cases 41 - 50 of 53
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv05612
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv05613
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Yadir A. Ontiveros v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. et al
as 2:2015cv07118
Defendant:
Does, Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., Safelite Glass Corp and others
Plaintiff:
Yadir A. Ontiveros
Campfield et al v. Safelite Group, Inc. et al
as 2:2015cv02733
Plaintiff:
Richard Campfield and Ultra Bond, Inc.
Defendant:
Safelite Group, Inc. , Safelite Solutions LLC and Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Trent v. Safelite Fulfillment Inc
as 3:2013cv00430
Plaintiff:
David Trent
Defendant:
Safelite Fulfillment Inc
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act
Safelite Group, Inc. et al v. Innovative Marketing Systems, Inc. et al
as 1:2011cv03347
Defendant:
Innovative Marketing Systems, Inc. an Arizona corporation doing business as Safevue Autoglass, Craig Leedom, AJ Aurit and others
Plaintiff:
Safelite Group, Inc. and Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv02930
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Lewis v. Safelite Fulfillment Inc.
as 3:2011cv05512
Plaintiff:
Demetriot K. Lewis
Defendant:
Safelite Fulfillment Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Safelite Fulfillment Inc et al v. Ramhuset-Dalaspeglar AB
as 2:2010cv00492
Plaintiff:
Safelite Fulfillment Inc , Glass Medic Inc and Belron Technical Ltd
Defendant:
Ramhuset-Dalaspeglar AB
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv00955
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
