Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Smith v. Honda Power Equipment Manufacturing, Inc.
as 5:2022cv00086
Plaintiff:
Robert Smith
Defendant:
Honda Power Equipment Manufacturing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Gates v. Lejeune Motor Company
as 7:2020cv00138
Plaintiff:
Dena Gates
Defendant:
Lejeune Motor Company d/b/a Lejeune Honda Cars
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Bailey v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al
as 5:2020cv00093
Plaintiff:
Sheryl Bailey
Defendant:
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and Home Depot USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Chavis v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
as 7:2019cv00153
Defendant:
Sammy's Auto Sales, Inc., Daicel Safety Tube Processing, Inc., Cox Family Automotive, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Kristin D. Chavis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Harper et al v. Regional Acceptance Greenville et al
as 4:2018cv00138
Defendant:
Barbour-Hedrick Honda Greenville and Regional Acceptance Greenville
Plaintiff:
Yolanda M. Williamson, Tracey W. Harper and Rahmir Williamson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cox, Sr. v. AGCO Corporation, et al.
as 4:2016cv00084
Defendant:
AGCO Corporation, Star Machine & Tool, SPX Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Cox, Sr, Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Valerie M. Cox and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
United States of America v. Davis Personal Property, Specifically Described As et al
as 7:2012cv00284
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
Davis Personal Property, Specifically Described As and A 1994 Honda Accord Ex
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Nguyen Personal Property
as 2:2012cv00010
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
Nguyen Personal Property Described Specifically as, A 2008 Honda Accord and $5,619.00 in U. S. Currency
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
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.
