Cases 31 - 40 of 537
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-2797
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Howmet Aerospace, Inc. v. Corrigan et al
as 1:2022cv00713
Plaintiff:
Howmet Aerospace, Inc.
Defendant:
John Corrigan, Nicholas Lirones, ESTATE OF RONALD WARD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv05520
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
Cockrum et al v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc et al
as 2:2022cv00969
Defendant:
Howmet Aerospace Inc, C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc, Arconic Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey L. Cockrum, Donna Cockrum and Jeffrey L Cockrum
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 3:2022cv05500
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey L. Cockrum, Donna Cockrum and Jeffrey L Cockrum
Defendant:
C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc, P-G Industries, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and others
Arconic Corp.In re: Arconic Corp.
as 22-1917
Petitioner:
In re: ARCONIC CORP
Respondent:
ARCONIC INC, HOWMET AEROSPACE INC, NOVELIS INC and others
AIRTECH INTERNATIONAL INC v. YIM et al
as 2:2022cv00668
Plaintiff:
AIRTECH INTERNATIONAL INC
Defendant:
BYUNG CHAN YIM, HYO SUN KIM, ASSURED COMPONENTS LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv02038
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv02020
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv10390
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
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.
