Cases 11 - 18 of 18
CURRY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC et al
as 2:2017cv02331
Plaintiff:
ROBERT CURRY
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 623
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
Cox v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 3:2015cv02013
Plaintiff:
Paul Cox
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc. and Local Union 401, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
James Hughes, et al v. UPS Inc, et al
as 15-1690
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES HUGHES, MELISSA HUGHES, JOHN K. HUGHES and others
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 623
FRITZINGER v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. - LOCAL 177, I.B.T. MULTI-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT PLAN
as 5:2014cv05927
Plaintiff:
KENNETH FRITZINGER
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. - LOCAL 177, I.B.T. MULTI-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT PLAN
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
HUGHES et al v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC et al
as 2:2014cv03822
Plaintiff:
JAMES HUGHES , MELISSA HUGHES , JOHN K. HUGHES and others
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 623
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 177 v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
as 2:2011cv00180
Plaintiff:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 177
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND et al v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
as 5:2009cv00961
Plaintiff:
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND and others
Defendant:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 177 v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
as 2:2009cv00903
Petitioner:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 177
Respondent:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
