Cases 1 - 10 of 13
USA ROOFMASTERS v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
as 2:2022cv04202
Plaintiff:
USA ROOFMASTERS, as assignee of Larry and Meryl Harwood and USA ROOFMASTERS
Defendant:
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00919
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv01337
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00818
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Ruggles et al v. Chesapeake Appalachia L.L.C. et al
as 3:2018cv01063
Plaintiff:
John G Ruggles, Jr. , Frederick C Ruggles , Mary Ann Ruggles and others
Defendant:
Chesapeake Appalachia L.L.C. and Chesapeake Energy Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARWOOD HOUSE v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGDALE, PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2017cv05647
Plaintiff:
HARWOOD HOUSE
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF COLLINGDALE, PENNSYLVANIA and ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF COLLINGDALE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
HARWOOD v. MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P. et al
as 2:2016cv01348
Plaintiff:
SUZANNE HARWOOD
Defendant:
MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00019
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Family Medical Leave Act 1993 (FMLA)
TILLIO v. RODRIGUZ et al
as 2:2012cv01170
Plaintiff:
PATRICK DANIEL TILLIO, SR.
Defendant:
JOE RODRIGUZ and VINCENT'S HARWOOD FLOORING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv01422
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of 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.
