Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00072
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
In re: David Kauffman
as 23-3179
Petitioner:
In re: DAVID R. KAUFFMAN
Respondent:
BARRY SMITH, ERIC YOUNG, BORDAS and others
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Company of America Inc
as 23-3683
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD MOONEY
Defendant / Appellee:
ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA INC
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Company of America Inc
as 23-3552
Plaintiff / Appellee:
RICHARD MOONEY
Defendant / Appellant:
ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA INC, a Delaware corporation
KAUFFMAN v. SMITH et al
as 3:2023cv00239
Plaintiff:
DAVID R. KAUFFMAN
Defendant:
BARRY SMITH, ERIC YOUNG, BORDAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MOONEY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2021cv04889
Plaintiff:
RICHARD MOONEY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
FROBENIUS v. 3M Company et al
as 3:2021cv04198
Plaintiff:
JOHN FROBENIUS, TERRY GERMANY, RONALD GILCHRIST and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Frobenius et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2021cv02595
Plaintiff:
John Frobenius, Terry Germany, Ronald Gilchrist and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Mooney v. Roller Bearing Company of America Inc
as 2:2020cv01030
Defendant:
Roller Bearing Company of America, Inc. and Roller Bearing Company of America Inc
Plaintiff:
Richard Mooney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mooney et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2015cv00263
Plaintiff:
Janet Mooney and Richard Mooney
Defendant:
Boston Scientific 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.
