Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Tehozol et al v. D & C Sutphin Corp. et al
as 1:2016cv05183
Plaintiff:
Ricardo Castro, Fernando Martinez, Edilberto Tehozol and others
Defendant:
D & C Sutphin Corp., Rodolfo Diaz, L & S 5311 Food Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Tehozol et al v. D&C Sutphin Corp. et al
as 1:2016cv07165
Plaintiff:
Edilberto Tehozol , Rafael Tehozol , Marco Tehozol and others
Defendant:
D&C Sutphin Corp., M.S. Family Food Corp., 5311 Meat Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Guzman v. A.S. Fulton Food Corp. et al
as 1:2015cv03313
Defendant:
1299 Meat and Produce Food Corp., A.S. Fulton Food Corp., Arodiz Xavier Diaz and others
Plaintiff:
Marino Antonio Guzman
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Santana v. Lifetime Products, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv01360
Defendant:
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. and Lifetime Products, Inc.
Plaintiff:
David Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Santana et al
as 1:2013cv00516
Plaintiff:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Defendant:
David Santana, Orestes Santana, Jr. and Giselda Valencia Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Interpleader Action
Arias et al v. The Wavecrest Management Team, LTD. et al
as 1:2011cv03347
Plaintiff:
Anthony Arias and David Santana
Defendant:
Bushwick Catch Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Catch NYC Inc., Carlton Collier and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Santana v. Dennison
as 10-1489
Plaintiff - Appellant:
David Santana
Defendant - Appellee:
Robert Dennison, of the New York State Division of Parole and Michael Roache, for the New York State Division of Parole
Santana v. Dennison et al
as 1:2007cv02023
Plaintiff:
David Santana
Defendant:
Robert Dennison and Michael Roache
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
