Cases 1 - 7 of 7
United States of America ex rel. Taryn Hartnett v. Douglas Smith
as 21-2035
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. TARYN HARTNETT; DANA SHOCHED, J. D. JENKINS, ELIZABETH COYLE and others
Defendant / Appellant:
DOUGLAS SMITH
Defendant:
PHYSICIANS CHOICE LABORATORY SERVICES, PHILIP MCHUGH, MANOJ KUMAR and others
USA, et al v. Physicians Choice Lab Serv
as 15-5691
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al.
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRIAN EBERHARD, Individually
Defendant - Appellee:
PHYSICIANS CHOICE LABORATORY SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
Smith et al v. Chapman
as 3:2015mc00107
Plaintiff:
Douglas R. Smith
Defendant:
Avery Chapman
Movant:
Brian Eberhard
Eberhard v. Physicians Choice Laboratory Services, LLC
as 3:2015cv00156
Plaintiff:
Brian Eberhard
Defendant:
Physicians Choice Laboratory Services, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Smith et al v. Chapman et al
as 3:2014cv00238
Plaintiff:
Douglas R. Smith, Mary Luczak-Smith, DRS Family Management, LLC and others
Defendant:
Avery Chapman, Taryn Hartnett, Chapman Legal Group doing business as Chapman Law Group, PLLC and others
Petitioner:
Brian Eberhard
Interested Party:
Laboratory Equipment Holdings, LLC and Physicians Choice Laboratory Services, LLC
Counter Claimant:
Chapman Legal Group
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
AVNET et al v. ABBOTT SEVERANCE PAY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF KOS
as 3:2011cv07438
Plaintiff:
ROBERT AVNET , BRENDA BENNETT , GINA BIGLIONE and others
Defendant:
ABBOTT SEVERANCE PAY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF KOS PHARMACEUTICALS
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
United States of America et al v. Angiodynamics, Inc (TV3)
as 3:2011cv00556
Intervenor_plaintiff:
United States of America
Plaintiff:
State of California , State of Colorado , State of Connecticut and others
Defendant:
Angiodynamics, Inc
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729
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.
