Cases 31 - 40 of 48
S.S. et al v. JUUL LABS, INC et al
as 5:2019cv04820
Defendant:
PAX LABS, INC. and JUUL LABS, INC
Plaintiff:
K.S. and S.S.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GLUCH v. JUUL LABS, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv04821
Defendant:
DOES 1-10, PHILLIP MORRIS, USA, INC., JUUL LABS, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
JASON GLUCH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LAPLANTE v. JUUL LABS, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv04828
Defendant:
JUUL LABS, INC., PAX LABS, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
THEODORE LAPLANTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Chemical Equipment Labs, Inc.
as 2:2019cv03999
Defendant:
CHEMICAL EQUIPMENT LABS, INC.
Plaintiff:
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
CHEMICAL EQUIPMENT LABS, INC. v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
as 2:2019cv03441
Defendant:
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
CHEMICAL EQUIPMENT LABS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ZHANG et al v. TING ORTHODONTIC LAB, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv01334
Defendant:
TING ORTHODONTIC LAB, INC. and RICHARD TING
Plaintiff:
JUN ZHANG and JUN LI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
VISCOMI et al v. JUUL LABS, INC. et al
as 5:2018cv03760
Plaintiff:
DAVID MASESSA, DAVID LECHTZIN, MICHAEL VISCOMI and others
Defendant:
JUUL LABS, INC. and PAX LABS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv05454
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv05108
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
ALMAC CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC et al v. AERI PARK et al
as 2:2016cv04896
Plaintiff:
ALMAC CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC and ALMAC SCIENCES, LLC
Defendant:
AERI PARK and TRICLINIC LABS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
