Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Rader v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al
as 4:2023cv05392
Plaintiff:
Scottie Rader
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc and Todd Carroll
3Rd Party Defendant:
SC North Myrtle Beach 11th Ave., LP, a South Carolina Limited Partnership nka Ireit North Myrtle Beach Coastal North, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Mobley v. Smith et al
as 1:2023cv05098
Plaintiff:
Christopher Mobley
Defendant:
Dennis Jay Smith and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Jennings v. Smith et al
as 1:2023cv05099
Plaintiff:
Byron Jennings
Defendant:
Dennis Jay Smith and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Phillips v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
as 8:2023cv04536
Plaintiff:
Vivian Elaine Phillips
Defendant:
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Isler et al v. US Properties Group Inc et al
as 7:2018cv03446
Defendant:
US Properties Group Inc, USPG Franklin LLC and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
Plaintiff:
Shawny April Isler and Wayne Isler, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Zieziula v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
as 0:2016cv02070
Plaintiff:
Joanne A Zieziula
Defendant:
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Jones v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
as 3:2013cv00440
Plaintiff:
Frankie Jones
Defendant:
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury
Sawyer v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc et al
as 4:2011cv03292
Plaintiff:
Timothy Sawyer
Defendant:
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc and Joseph Geren
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Hardy et al v. HRM Florence LLC et al
as 4:2010cv01768
Plaintiff:
Roberta S Hardy , Henry Johnson and Southwest Pottery LLC
Defendant:
HRM Florence LLC , TMB Florence LLC , Hobby Lobby Stores Inc and others
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.
