Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Jones v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
as 6:2023cv04102
Plaintiff:
Joseph Jones
Defendant:
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
McMahan v. Jones et al
as 1:2021cv00010
Defendant:
Joseph Jones and Graham County Sheriff's Office
Plaintiff:
Brent McMahan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
McMahan v. Jones et al
as 1:2021cv00009
Plaintiff:
Reba McMahan
Defendant:
Joseph Jones, Graham County Sheriff's Office and Jerry Crisp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones v. Miller, et al.
as 4:2017cv00588
Defendant:
James P. Miller and Golden Rule Air Conditioning & Heating LLC
Plaintiff:
Joseph Jones
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704
Joseph Jones v. Pepsico, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan et al
as 1:2015cv01426
Plaintiff:
Joseph Jones
Defendant:
Pepsico, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan and Does
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Joseph Jones v. Pepsico, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan et al
as 2:2015cv00646
Defendant:
Does and Pepsico, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan
Plaintiff:
Joseph Jones
Bechtol et al v. Up In Smoke, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv03083
Plaintiff:
Lew Bechtol , Laura Anne Bechtol , Steven Scott Schwartz and others
Defendant:
Up In Smoke Inc , Daniel L Schmitt and Carol A Schmitt
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 5
Bechtol et al v. Up In Smoke, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv03075
Plaintiff:
Lew Bechtol, Laura Anne Bechtol, Dena Kay Dorsey and others
Defendant:
Up In Smoke Inc, Daniel L Schmitt and Carol A Schmitt
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 5
Jones et al v. Hoffberger Moving Services, LLC.
as 1:2013cv00535
Plaintiff:
Herbert Jones and Joseph Jones
Defendant:
Hoffberger Moving Services, LLC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Jones v. GOLDCO LLC,
as 7:2012cv00124
Plaintiff:
Joseph Jones
Defendant:
GOLDCO LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
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.
