Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Crooks v. AW Chesterton Company et al
as 1:2022cv06089
Plaintiff:
David Crooks
Defendant:
AW Chesterton Company, AO Smith Corporation, ABB Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation
McMaster-Carr Supply Company v. Doe et al
as 1:2021cv02554
Defendant:
JANE DOE and John Doe
Plaintiff:
McMaster-Carr Supply Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
McMaster-Carr Supply Company v. McCrady et al
as 1:2019cv07208
Plaintiff:
McMaster-Carr Supply Company
Defendant:
Charles Rockwell McCrady and McCrady Master Reference, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Ayotte v. The Boeing Company
as 1:2018cv02662
Defendant:
The Boeing Company , A.W. Chesterton Company, H.B. Fuller Company and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel L Ayotte
Cross_claimant:
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company , The Toro Company , Industrial Holdings Corporation and others
Cross_defendant:
Daniel L Ayotte , United Technologies Corporation-Pratt & Whitney Division, Dana Companies, LLC and others
Counter_claimant:
Industrial Holdings Corporation , MTD Products, Inc. and Tenneco, Inc.
Counter_defendant:
United Technologies Corporation-Pratt & Whitney Division, Dana Companies, LLC , Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
VENADIUM LLC v. McMaster-Carr Supply Company
as 1:2017cv08164
Plaintiff:
VENADIUM LLC
Defendant:
McMaster-Carr Supply Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
McMaster Carr Supply Company v. M AND P SALES, INC. et al
as 1:2009cv06208
Plaintiff:
McMaster Carr Supply Company
Defendant:
M AND P SALES, INC. and Peter Jennings
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44 Trademark Infringement
McMaster-Carr Supply Company v. QL2 Software, Inc. et al
as 1:2009cv00278
Plaintiff:
McMaster-Carr Supply Company
Defendant:
QL2 Software, Inc., Gorge ISP, Inc., Timothy Jones and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
