Cases 41 - 50 of 87
Adam Berenato v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc et al
as 8:2014cv02038
Plaintiff:
Adam Berenato
Defendant:
Does and Luxottica Retail North America Inc
BRANTLEY v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC
as 3:2014cv00636
Plaintiff:
TARA BRANTLEY
Defendant:
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00581
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Intervenor:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Brantley v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
as 3:2014cv00561
Plaintiff:
Tara Brantley
Defendant:
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00346
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv02132
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Target Corporation et al v. Visa Inc. et al
as 1:2013cv05745
Petitioner:
4sure.com, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and others
Respondent:
Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated, Visa Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Sevilla v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc An Ohio Corporation.
as 1:2013cv13869
Plaintiff:
David Sevilla
Defendant:
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc An Ohio Corporation.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv01305
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 38 U.S.C. § 4301 Uniformed Services Employment & Re-Employment Rights Act
Page v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., et al
as 2:2013cv01333
Plaintiff:
Lendsie Page
Defendant:
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. and Eyexam of California, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
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.
