Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Aramark Services Inc et al v. 7725 Reno #1 LLC
as 5:2020cv01214
Defendant:
7725 Reno #1 LLC
Plaintiff:
Aramark Srvices Inc and Aramark Services Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv01158
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Routt v. Hansford et al
as 4:2018cv00439
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation, Dustin Hansford and Joshua Lankford
Plaintiff:
John Stephen Routt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wonsch v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC et al
as 5:2017cv00245
Plaintiff:
Robert V Wonsch
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services LLC, Joseph K Lester, F Dewayne Beggs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moore v. Aramark Company et al
as 4:2014cv00607
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Deon Moore
Defendant:
Aramark Company and Tulsa County Sheriff Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lee v. Aramark Correctional Services, L.L.C.
as 4:2014cv00460
Plaintiff:
Hattye Lee
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Wolf v. Aramark Corporation et al
as 5:2014cv00439
Plaintiff:
Patricia Wolf
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation, Skyland Resort Stables and Shenandoah National Park Association
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Moore v. David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center et al
as 4:2012cv00470
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Deon Moore
Defendant:
David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center and Aramark
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LaCour v. Tulsa City-County Jail, The et al
as 4:2011cv00696
Plaintiff:
Torance W LaCour
Defendant:
Tulsa City-County Jail, The, Tulsa County Sheriff's Department, Board of County Commissioners, The and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lemen v. Aramark Services, Inc.
as 4:2008cv00090
Plaintiff:
Anita Lemen
Defendant:
Aramark Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
