Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 255
Winston Anderson, et al v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al
as 22-16268
Plaintiff / Appellant: WINSTON R. ANDERSON and CHRISTOPHER M. SULYMA, and all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee: INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE, INTEL RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS and others
Parmenter v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al
as 22-1614
Plaintiff / Appellant: BARBARA M. PARMENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee: PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Grosso v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan
as 22-1701
Plaintiff / Appellant: Vincent C. Grosso, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated and Patricia M. Wing, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated
Defendant / Appellee: AT&T Pension Benefit Plan and AT&T Services, Inc., as Plan Administrator
Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. Whitehouse Estates, Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv05412
Plaintiff: Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund
Defendant: Whitehouse Estates, Inc., Whitehpuse Estates, Inc. and ABC Companies 1 - 10
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider: ABC Companies 1 - 10 (all other trades or businesses under common control with Whitehouse Estates, Inc.)
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Civil Enforcement of Employee Benefits
Matney, et al v. Barrick Gold of North America, et al
as 22-4045
Plaintiff / Appellant: COLE MATNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and PAUL WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee: BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA and BARRICK U.S. SUBSIDIARIES BENEFITS COMMITTEE
Ohio State Home Services, Inc. v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, et al.
as 1:2022cv00675
Plaintiff: Ohio State Home Services Inc On Behalf of Itself and All Other Similarly Situated doing business as Ohio State Waterproofing
Defendant: Medical Mutual of Ohio, Medical Mutual Services, LLC doing business as Mutual Health Services and Mutual Health Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board, et al
as 22-1098
Plaintiff / Appellee: ROBERT HARRISON, on behalf of himself and ROBERT HARRISON, on behalf of himself, the Envision Management Holding, Inc. ESOP, and all other similarly situated individuals.
Defendant / Appellant: ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ARGENT TRUST COMPANY and others
Belknap v. Mass Gen. Brigham, Inc., fka Partners Healthcare, et al
as 22-1188
Plaintiff / Appellant: SCOTT BELKNAP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee: PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, f/k/a Partners Healthcare System, Inc., PENSION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE and others
Defendant: JOHN/JANE DOES
Plutzer v. Bankers Trust Company of South
as 22-561
Plaintiff / Appellant: Edward Plutzer, on behalf of the Tharanco Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee: Bankers Trust Company of South Dakota, a South Dakota Limited Liability Corporation, Haresh T. Tharani, Michael J. Setola and others
Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. River Tower Owner LLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv01195
Plaintiff: Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund
Defendant: River Tower Owner LLC, ABC Companies 1 - 10 (all other trades or businesses under common control with River Tower Owner LLC and ABC Companies 1 - 10
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Civil Enforcement of Employee Benefits

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.


Why Is My Information Online?