Cases 21 - 30 of 36
Dawson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
as 3:2014cv00561
Plaintiff:
John Dawson
Defendant:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Georgia Pacific LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv00275
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lain v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC
as 3:2014cv00157
Plaintiff:
Travis Lain
Defendant:
Georgia-Pacific, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HALL et al v. American Honda Motor Company Inc et al
as 0:2013cv61342
Plaintiff:
CHARLIE GILMER HALL and Mary Hall
Defendant:
American Honda Motor Company Inc, ARVINMERITOR INC, Borg-Warner Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Asbestos Litigation
Mace et al v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC et al
as 3:2013cv00328
Plaintiff:
James L. Mace and Marshall A. Reddy
Defendant:
Georgia-Pacific, LLC and Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Property Damage
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2013cv00130
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2013cv00009
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Flomenhoft et al v. Georgia-Pacific LLC et al
as 8:2012cv02496
Plaintiff:
Mark Flomenhoft and Linda Flomenhoft
Defendant:
Georgia-Pacific LLC and Union Carbide Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2012cv01208
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2012cv00210
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
