Cases 1 - 10 of 155
Heimlick v. Newman
as 25-20152
Plaintiff:
Edmund Heimlick
Defendant:
Michael Newman, in Official Capacity as Judge and Individual Capacity and as Attorney, Jerry Simoneaux, in Official Capacity as Judge and Individual Capacity and as Attorney, David S. Cook, as Personal Representative of The Estate and others
Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada and California Glaziers, Fabricators, Painters and Floorcoverers Pension Trust Fund v. ITZRoyalty Construction, Inc. et al
as 2:2025cv00117
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada and California Glaziers, Fabricators, Painters and Floorcoverers Pension Trust Fund
Defendant:
ITZRoyalty Construction, Inc., Suretec Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
R. A. Sharp Construction Company, LLC et al v. Builders Mutual Insurance Company
as 2:2024cv02672
Plaintiff:
R. A. Sharp Construction Company, LLC and SureTec Insurance Company
Defendant:
Builders Mutual Insurance Company
Counter-Defendant:
R. A. Sharp Construction Company, LLC and SureTec Insurance Company
Counter-Claimant:
Builders Mutual Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company v. T & D Services, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv07812
Defendant:
Donald Thomas Van Dyke, Doe 1 through 5, Suretec Insurance Company and others
Plaintiff:
Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1145 E.R.I.S.A.
Suretec Insurance Company v. Qwest Engineering, Inc. et al
as 8:2024cv01332
Defendant:
Qwest Engineering, Inc., Vanguard Equipment Rentals, Timothy Bell and others
Plaintiff:
Suretec Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd. v. Sentinel Fence and Contracting, Inc et al
as 3:2023cv02337
Plaintiff:
Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd.
Defendant:
Sentinel Fence and Contracting, Inc, Sentinel Fence and Contracting, LLC, Sharon Reardon Hamilton and others
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 3131 Bonds of contractors of public buildings
The United States of America for the use and benefit of CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC et al v. Colston Construction Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00165
Plaintiff:
The United States of America for the use and benefit of CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC, CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC and United States of America
Defendant:
Colston Construction Inc. and Suretec Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 3131 Miller Act
Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust et al v. Combos Glass, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv01837
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust, Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada and California Glaziers, Fabricators, Painters and Floorcoverers Pension Trust Fund, Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada Painters and Decorators and Glaziers Labor-Management Cooperation Committee Trust and others
Defendant:
Combos Glass, Inc., Genoa Glass Inc., Christopher Ronald Combos and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
The United States, for the Use and Benefit of Patriot Construction & Industrial, L.L.C. v. SureTec Insurance Company
as 3:2023cv01345
Plaintiff:
THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF PATRIOT CONTRUCTION & INDUSTRIAL, L.L.C. and The United States, for the Use and Benefit of Patriot Construction & Industrial, L.L.C.
Defendant:
SureTec Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
United States of America v. Tandem Roofing, LLC et al
as 2:2023cv02293
Not Classified By Court:
SureTec Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Exposed Roof Design, LLC and United States of America
Defendant:
Tandem Roofing, LLC, E&F Construction, A Joint Venture, Markel Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 40 U.S.C. § 3131 Miller 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.
