Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Day v. Chappelle et al
as 0:2012cv62409
Plaintiff:
Lincoln W. Day
Defendant:
Scott Chappelle and Laura Chappelle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
CMC Telecom, Inc., et al v. Michigan Bell Telephone Compan, et al
as 12-1885
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CMC TELECOM, INC.
Plaintiff:
GRID 4 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT&T Michigan
Defendant:
J. PETER LARK, Chairman, MONICA MARTINEZ, Commissioner and LAURA CHAPPELLE
Chappell et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
as 3:2010cv10763
Plaintiff:
Laura Chappell , Kelly Smith and Amy Sandoval
Defendant:
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Schering Pharma AG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CMC Telecom, Inc., et al v. Michigan Bell Telephone Compan, et al
as 09-2239
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CMC TELECOM, INC.
Plaintiff:
GRID 4 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT&T Michigan, J. PETER LARK, Chairman, MONICA MARTINEZ, Commissioner and others
Mountain Vista Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, LLC v. Center of Bonita Partners, LLC et al
as 1:2009cv01746
Plaintiff:
Mountain Vista Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, LLC and Mountain Vista Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, LLC
Defendant:
Center of Bonita Partners, LLC, Center of Bonita Partners, LLC, Tamiami Investment Properties, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Hartford Mezzanine Investors I, LLC v. Chappelle et al
as 1:2008cv03038
Plaintiff:
Hartford Mezzanine Investors I, LLC
Defendant:
Scott Chappelle, Scott Chappelle, Laura Chappelle and others
Counter-Claimant:
Scott Chappelle, Scott Chappelle, Laura Chappelle and others
Counter-Defendant:
Hartford Mezzanine Investors I, LLC
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Michigan Bell Telephone Compan v. J. Lark, et al
as 07-2469
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba Michigan Bell Telephone Co., AT&T Michigan
Intervenor - Appellant:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TALK AMERICA INC. and XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
Intervenor:
MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and TDS METROCOM, LLC
Defendant:
J. PETER LARK, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals, LAURA CHAPPELLE, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals and MONICA MARTINEZ, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michigan Bell Telephone Compan v. Laura Chappelle, et al
as 07-2473
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT&T Michigan
Defendant - Appellant:
LAURA CHAPPELLE, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals, J. PETER LARK, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals and MONICA MARTINEZ, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals
Intervenor:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TALK AMERICA INC., MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and others
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
CMC Telecom, Inc. et al v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company et al
as 1:2007cv00319
Plaintiff:
CMC Telecom, Inc. and Grid 4 Communications, Inc.
Defendant:
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, J. Peter Lark and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 151 Telecommunications Act of 1996
Quick Communications v. MI Bell Tele Co, et al
as 06-2103
Plaintiff - Appellant:
QUICK COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, dba Quick Connect USA and TELNET WORLDWIDE, INCORPORATED, a Michigan corporation
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba SBC Michigan, J. PETER LARK, Chairman, ROBERT B. NELSON, Commissioner and others
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.
