Cases 31 - 40 of 802
NIKOO et al v. CAMERON et al
as 1:2018cv11621
Defendant:
NORMAN CAMERON, SUNTRUST LEASING CORPORATION, TRANSERVICE LOGISTICS, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
HOOSHANG NIKOO and NANCY NIKOO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Garcia v. Praxair, Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv03887
Defendant:
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Delaware corporation, PRAXAIR, INC., a Delaware corporation;, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and others
Plaintiff:
Rita Garcia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Piepszny v. Praxair, Inc.
as 1:2018cv00428
Plaintiff:
Jennifer L. Piepszny
Defendant:
Praxair, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Louie Hassan v. Praxair, Inc., et al
as 2:2018cv02811
Defendant:
DOES and Praxair, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Louie Hassan
SUBPOENA OF JULIE M. CAREY et al v. PRAXAIR, INC. et al
as 1:2018mc00034
Movant:
PRAXAIR, INC. and JULIE M. CAREY
Plaintiff:
CHINA PETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Defendant:
PRAXAIR, INC., ANNE ROBY, JOHN PANIKAR and others
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
China Petrochemical Development v. Praxair, Inc.
as 1:2018cv00107
Plaintiff:
China Petrochemical Development
Defendant:
Praxair, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
China Petrochemical Development v. Praxair Inc
as 1:2018mc10040
Plaintiff:
China Petrochemical Development
Defendant:
Praxair Inc
Movant:
Graham Stevens and Praxair Inc
China Petrochemical Development Corporation v. Praxair, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv02005
Plaintiff:
China Petrochemical Development Corporation
Defendant:
Praxair, Inc. , Anne Roby , John Panikar and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Michael Benz v. Praxair, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv07142
Plaintiff:
Michael Benz
Defendant:
DOES, Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv00384
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
