Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Hancock et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2014cv08064
Plaintiff:
Terrence J Hancock , David M Snelten , John J Lisner and others
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Laborers' Pension and Laborers' Welfare Fund for the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago Vicinity et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2014cv02486
Plaintiff:
Laborers' Pension and Laborers' Welfare Fund for the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago Vicinity and James S. Jorgensen
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
Laborers' Pension Fund et al v. Armato Paving, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv08234
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc. and Dean Armato
Plaintiff:
Laborers' Pension Fund , Laborers' Welfare Fund of the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and Vicinity and James S. Jorgensen
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
Laborer's Pension Fund et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2009cv00383
Plaintiff:
Laborer's Pension Fund, Laborer's Pension Fund, Laborer's Pension Fund and others
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Hancock et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2009cv00225
Plaintiff:
Terrence J, Hancock, Terrence J, Hancock, Terrence J, Hancock and others
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Hancock et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2007cv03108
Plaintiff:
Terrance J Hancock, Terrance J Hancock, Terrance J Hancock and others
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Laborers' Pension Fund et al v. Armato Paving, Inc.
as 1:2007cv00265
Plaintiff:
Laborers' Pension Fund, Laborers' Pension Fund, Laborers' Pension Fund and others
Defendant:
Armato Paving, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Employee Pension Plan
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.
