Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Martin Wells, et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al
as 17-80098
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
MARTIN WELLS, SUSAN WELLS, as Trustrees of the Martin and Susan Wells Revocable Trust and SANDRA L. HINSHAW, as Trustee of the Sandra L. Hinshaw Living Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Respondent:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to Southern Pacific Transportation Company, SFPP, L.P., formerly known as Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and others
James Mooney, et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al
as 17-80078
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
JAMES PAUL MOONEY and LAZY COYOTE RV VILLAGE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Respondent:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, SFPP, L.P., formerly known as SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, Inc., formerly known as SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES, Inc., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and others
Charles Serrano, et al v. UPRR, et al
as 16-56562
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,, BARBARA SLOAN, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC and others
Defendant - Appellant:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Defendant:
SFPP, L.P., KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC.
Charles Serrano, et al v. UPRR, et al
as 16-80101
Plaintiff - Respondent:
CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,, BARBARA SLOAN, as trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Defendant:
SFPP, L.P., other Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Inc other Southern Pacific Pipelines Inc, KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D" and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC.
Amicus Curiae - Pending:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
T. Parker Host, Inc. v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv00411
Plaintiff:
T. Parker Host, Inc.
Defendant:
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC , Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc. , Kinder Morgan Services LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
City of San Diego v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al
as 3:2016cv01398
Plaintiff:
San Diego, The City of
Defendant:
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , Kinder Morgan Management, L.L.C. , SFPP, L.P. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Solo Vista Estates, Inc. et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.
as 2:2015cv00915
Plaintiff:
Solo Vista Estates, Inc. and Janet Carson
Defendant:
Union Pacific Railroad Company , SFPP, L.P. , Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lidia Rivera et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al
as 8:2015cv01362
Plaintiff:
Mary Cruz, Kenneth R Hansen, Enrique Molina and others
Defendant:
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. D, SFPP, L.P. and others
Lidia Rivera et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al
as 2:2015cv06511
Plaintiff:
Mary Cruz, Kenneth R Hansen, Enrique Molina and others
Defendant:
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. D, SFPP, L.P. and others
Pastran et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.
as 1:2015cv00729
Plaintiff:
Manuel Pastran , Ruben Pastran and Evelyn Pastran
Defendant:
Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
