Cases 1 - 6 of 6
MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE et al v. SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
as 1:2017cv02527
Plaintiff:
INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS and MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE
Defendant:
SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Employers and Cement Masons #90 Health & Welfare Fund et al v. Schaltenbrand Construction, Inc.
as 3:2016cv00776
Plaintiff:
Employers and Cement Masons #90 Health & Welfare Fund and Employers and Cement Masons #90 Pension Fund
Defendant:
Schaltenbrand Construction, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
MARK MCCLESKEY et al v. SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
as 1:2016cv00666
Plaintiff:
INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS and MARK MCCLESKEY
Defendant:
SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
MARK MCCLESKEY et al v. SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
as 1:2014cv02069
Plaintiff:
INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS and MARK MCCLESKEY
Defendant:
SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE et al v. SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
as 1:2013cv00219
Plaintiff:
INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS and MARK MCCLESKEY, TRUSTEE
Defendant:
SCHALTENBRAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Employers & Cement Masons #90 Health & Welfare Fund et al v. Schaltenbrand Construction, Inc. et al
as 3:2010cv00723
Plaintiff:
Employers & Cement Masons #90 Health & Welfare Fund and Employers & Cement Masons #90 Pension Fund
Defendant:
Schaltenbrand Construction, Inc. and Kimberly Schaltenbrand
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
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.
