Cases 21 - 30 of 92
Bounthon et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company
as 3:2023cv00765
Plaintiff:
Brittany Bounthon, Vivianna Rivera and Gina Allen
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Carroll v. The Procter & Gamble Company et al
as 3:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
Keith Carroll
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company an Ohio corporation doing business as Pampers.com and Does 1 through 25
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
SIMMONS v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
as 0:2022cv61956
Plaintiff:
CHRISTA SIMMONS
Defendant:
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
CHRISTA v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
as 0:2022cv61955
Plaintiff:
SIMMONS CHRISTA
Defendant:
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
SIMMONS v. HE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
as 0:2022cv61954
Plaintiff:
CHRISTA SIMMONS
Defendant:
HE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Gloria Quinones v. The Procter and Gamble Company
as 2:2022cv01941
Plaintiff:
Gloria Quinones
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Gloria Quinones v. The Procter and Gamble Company
as 2:2021cv09595
Plaintiff:
Gloria Quinones
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Gloria Quinones v. The Procter and Gamble Company
as CAC/2:21-CV-09595
Plaintiff:
Gloria Quinones
Defendant:
The Procter and Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Company
Esquivel et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company
as OHS/1:21-CV-00762
Plaintiff:
Esquivel, Erica Esquivel and Joshua Wallace
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company
Lyle v. Procter & Gamble Company
as OR/3:21-CV-01760
Plaintiff:
Lyle and Reese Lyle
Defendant:
Procter & Gamble Company
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.
