Cases 1 - 6 of 6
O'HARA v. CEDAR FARMS CO., INC.
as 2:2015cv05762
Plaintiff:
PATRICK O'HARA
Defendant:
CEDAR FARMS CO., INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
LEGATOS v. CEDAR FARMS CO., INC. et al
as 2:2015cv00874
Plaintiff:
JOHN LEGATOS
Defendant:
CEDAR FARMS CO., INC., GUS P. PAHIDES and PETER PAHIDES
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
All Plaintiffs, et al v. BNSF Railway Company, et al
as 09-7023
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Dakota Granite Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, McIntyre Group, Ltd., GVL Pipe & Demolition, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Fayus Enterprises, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Agway Liquidating Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and Maroon Incorporated, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Company and others
Appellee:
Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - MDL No. 1869
CEDAR FARMS CO., INC. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
as 1:2007cv02064
Plaintiff:
CEDAR FARMS CO., INC.
Defendant:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL 1869
as 1:2007mc00489
Plaintiff:
DAKOTA GRANITE COMPANY, MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD., MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD. and others
Defendant:
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Cedar Farms Co., Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al
as 3:2007cv00557
Plaintiff:
Cedar Farms Co., Inc., Cedar Farms Co., Inc., Cedar Farms Co., Inc. and others
Defendant:
CSX Transportation, Inc., BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0015 Antitrust Litigation
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.
