Cases 1 - 10 of 5,468
Christensen et al v. 3M Company et al
as 3:2023cv05255
Defendant:
3M Company, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Crane Environmental, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
David Emmett Christensen, Linda G. Christensen and Linda G Christensen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation
Rodriguez v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00875
Plaintiff:
keith rodriguez
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated
Cross Defendant:
Trinity Industries, Inc., Redco, Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Marsh Buggies, Inc. and others
3Rd Party Defendant:
Pennsylvania Insurance Company, Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Uniroyal, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation
Farris v. Avon Products, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv02023
Cross Defendant:
Brenntag Specialties LLC, Burnham LLC, DCO LLC and others
Defendant:
Empire Comfort Systems, Inc., Goulds Pumps (N.Y.) Inc., ITT, LLC and others
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider:
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. formerly known as Aqua-Chem, Inc. d/b/a Cleaver-Brooks Division, Diane Farris, Block Drug Company, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer
King v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation et al
as 1:2023cv10327
Defendant:
Carrier Corporation, Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., IMO Industries, Inc. and others
Cross Defendant:
HBW Industries, Inc., Riley Power Inc., The Marley-Wylain Company, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
John S. King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 pl Petition for Removal - Product Liability
Dennis Rockwell, et al v. ASCO, L.P., et al
as 22-56198
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DENNIS A. ROCKWELL and DAWN ROCKWELL
Defendant / Appellee:
ASCO, L.P., Successor-in-interest to Foster Engineering, FKA ASCO Valve, Inc., FKA ASCO Valve, LLC, FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION and others
Defendant:
AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC, CRANE CO., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to CHAPMAN VALVE CO, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and others
Marcus et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
as 3:2022cv09058
Defendant:
CLEAVER BROOKS, INC., DOMCO PR.O.DUCTS TEXAS, INC., Honeywell International, Inc. FKA Allied Signal Inc, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL R. MARCUS and VICTORIA L. MARCUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Cheek v. Admiral Valve, LLC et al
as 3:2022cv06666
Plaintiff:
Sidney Cheek
Defendant:
Admiral Valve, LLC, Air Liquid Systems Corporation, Alfa Laval, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Cheek v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al
as 3:2022cv06630
Plaintiff:
Sidney Cheek
Defendant:
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Alfa Laval Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Gillis, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.
as 1:2022cv11733
Plaintiff:
Robert J Gillis
Defendant:
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Alfa Laval Inc., Ametek, Inc., individually and as successor to Schutte & Koerting and others
Cross Defendant:
Boston Properties, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Crosby Valve, LLC and others
Cross Claimant:
Cla-val Co., Air & Liquid Systems Corporation and Mass General Brigham Incorporated
Interested Party:
Industry Products Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Ortman v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al
as 1:2022cv05042
Plaintiff:
David Ortman
Defendant:
A.W. Chesterton Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, Air & Liquid Systems, Inc., Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
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.
