Cases 11 - 18 of 18
Cyrus Miller v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company
as 14-1694
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Cyrus Miller
Defendant - Appellee:
Nestle Purina Petcare Company
Gandara v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company et al
as 1:2013cv04159
Plaintiff:
Rosalinda M. Gandara
Defendant:
Nestle Purina Petcare Company , Waggin Train LLC and Does 1 through 100 inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Gandara v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company et al
as 3:2013cv00487
Plaintiff:
Rosalinda M. Gandara
Defendant:
Nestle Purina Petcare Company , Waggin Train LLC and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Miller v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company
as 4:2013cv00283
Plaintiff:
Cyrus Miller
Defendant:
Nestle Purina PetCare Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
DEMITH et al v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv00959
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND DEMITH and KATHLEEN DEMITH
Defendant:
NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, NESTLE S.A., NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Ford et al v. Menu Foods Income Fund et al
as 3:2007cv00734
Plaintiff:
Hayley Ford and Shannon J. Kramer
Defendant:
Menu Foods Income Fund, Menu Foods Midwest Corporation, Menu Foods South Dakota, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Demith et al v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company et al
as 1:2007cv02211
Plaintiff:
Raymond Demith and Kathleen Demith
Defendant:
Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Nestle S.A., Nestle Holdings, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Stacey et al v. Nestle SA et al
as 4:2007cv00376
Plaintiff:
Scott Stacey, Scott Stacey, Scott Stacey and others
Defendant:
Nestle SA, Nestle Holdings Inc, Nestle USA Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Property Damage
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.
