Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 12
In Re: Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation
as 1:2020cv09438
Defendant: Alexander Wynaendts, James S. Turley, Grace E. Dailey and others
Plaintiff: Employees' Retirement System of The State of Rhode Island, Dean Andersen and Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund
Nominal Defendant: Citigroup Inc.
Interested Party: Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds and Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
Lead Plaintiff: The Employee Retirement System of the City of Providence
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2011cv07529
Debtor: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Type: Bankruptcy Appeal
The Board of Trustees of and on behalf of The General Retirement System of the City of Detroit et al v. BNY Mellon, N.A. et al
as 1:2011cv06345
Plaintiff: The Board of Trustees of and on behalf of The General Retirement System of the City of Detroit and The Board of Trustees of and on behalf of The Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
Defendant: BNY Mellon, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
City of Roseville Empl Retirem v. R. Gill
as 10-3815
Plaintiff - Appellee: CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPL RETIREMENT SYS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff - Appellant: POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT
Defendant - Appellee: HORIZON LINES INC., MARK URBANIA, GABRIEL SERRA and others
City of Roseville Empl Retirem, et al v. Horizon Lines Inc., et al
as 10-2788
Plaintiff - Appellee: CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPL RETIREMENT SYS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff - Appellant: POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT
Defendant - Appellee: HORIZON LINES INC., CHARLES G. RAYMOND, MARK URBANIA and others
Police & Fire Retirement System of The City of Detroit v. Smith International Inc. et al
as 4:2010cv01925
Plaintiff: Police & Fire Retirement System of The City of Detroit
Defendant: Smith International Inc., John Yearwood, Douglas L Rock and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
The General Retirement System, et al v. Dot Hill Systems Corporation, et al
as 09-55602
: In re: DOTHILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant: THE GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT and POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT
Plaintiff: INNA NARYZNAI, JOSEPH CHRIS JARDIN and YOEL STEINBERG
Defendant - Appellee: DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION, JAMES L. LAMBERT, DANA W. KAMMERSGARD and others
Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Orchard Park, LLC et al
as 1:2009mc08005
Plaintiff: Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
Defendant: Orchard Park, LLC, Crystal Terrace Retirement Community, LLC, Sanddollar Village Assisted Living, LLC and others
Receiver: Grace Management, Inc.
Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Orchard Park LLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2008cv05316
Plaintiff: Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
Defendant: Orchard Park LLC, Crystal Terrace Retirement Community LLC, Sanddollar Village Assisted Living LLC and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2008cv00856
Plaintiff: Sammy Esses, Sammy Esses, Sammy Esses and others
Defendant: SIRF Technology Holdings, Inc., SIRF Technology Holdings, Inc., SIRF Technology Holdings, Inc. and others
Movant: Alex Meruelo, Alex Meruelo, Matthew Delaney and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act

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.


Why Is My Information Online?