Cases 1 - 6 of 6
RIVARD v. TRIP MATE, INC. et al
as 1:2021cv01625
Defendant:
TRIP MATE, INC. and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff:
FRANCIS RIVARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv12207
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
MATES v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.
as 3:2011cv06418
Plaintiff:
ARNOLD MATES
Defendant:
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SKYE v. MAERSK LINE, LIMITED et al
as 1:2008cv04813
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM C. SKYE and WILLIAM C. SKYE
Defendant:
MAERSK LINE, LIMITED, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS IRA, 401(K) PLANS and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
CONSOLIDATED RAIL v. ALLIANCE SHIPPERS
as 2:1993cv01327
Plaintiff:
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
Defendant:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC.,
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., and MATE TRUCKING
Thirdparty_defendant:
ADVANTAGE SPECIALTIES, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., MATE TRUCKING and others
Counter_claimant:
MATE TRUCKING , SELECTIVE TRANS. CO. and ALL CITY PAPER
Counter_defendant:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., and MATE TRUCKING
Cross_claimant:
MATE TRUCKING and SELECTIVE TRANS. CO.
Cross_defendant:
G.S.T. CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
CONSOLIDATED RAIL v. ALLIANCE SHIPPERS
as 1:1993cv01327
Plaintiff:
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
Defendant:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC.,
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., and MATE TRUCKING
Thirdparty_defendant:
ADVANTAGE SPECIALTIES, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., MATE TRUCKING and others
Counter_claimant:
MATE TRUCKING , SELECTIVE TRANS. CO. and ALL CITY PAPER
Counter_defendant:
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., and MATE TRUCKING
Cross_claimant:
MATE TRUCKING and SELECTIVE TRANS. CO.
Cross_defendant:
G.S.T. CORPORATION
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.
