Cases 21 - 28 of 28
Jamie Lewis v. United Parcel Service Inc et al
as 2:2010cv09520
Defendant:
Does, United Parcel Service Co., United Parcel Service General Services Co. and others
Plaintiff:
Jamie Lewis
AFMS LLC v. United Parcel Service Co. et al
as 2:2010cv05830
Plaintiff:
AFMS LLC
Defendant:
FedEx Corporation and United Parcel Service Co.
Arapahoe Hyundai, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 2:2010cv04350
Plaintiff:
Arapahoe Hyundai, LLC
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Co., United Parcel Service, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. (Ohio)
Unknown:
Steven M Kaufmann, Paul T. Friedman, Steven M Kaufmann and others
In Re United Parcel Service "Air-In-Ground" Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
as 2:2010ml02153
Plaintiff:
Arapahoe Hyundai LLC, Designer Imports International Inc, J-Rag Inc and others
Defendant:
Does, United Parcel Service Co, United Parcel Service General Services Co. and others
In Re:
United Parcel Service "Air-In-Ground" Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Designer Imports International, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 2:2010cv00733
Plaintiff:
Designer Imports International, Inc.
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Co., United Parcel Service General Services Co., United Parcel Service, Inc. and others
Pocino Foods Company et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 2:2010cv00734
Plaintiff:
J-Rag, Inc. and Pocino Foods Company
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Co., United Parcel Service General Services Co., United Parcel Service, Inc. and others
Raymond Bernal v. United Parcel Service Co et al
as 5:2008cv01579
Plaintiff:
Raymond Bernal
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Co and DOES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2007cv04181
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
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.
