Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Stuck v. United States Department of the Army et al
as 5:2022cv00864
Plaintiff:
Gerald Stuck
Defendant:
United States Department of the Army and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, National Federation of Federal Employee
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Employee Pension Plan
DOE et al v. TRUMP et al
as 1:2017cv01597
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE 1 , JANE DOE 2 , JANE DOE 3 and others
Defendant:
DONALD J. TRUMP , JAMES N. MATTIS , JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Contreras v. California National Guard et al
as 2:2013cv01440
Plaintiff:
Graciela M Contreras
Defendant:
California National Guard, United States Department of the Army and John McHugh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
SCALAFANI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY et al
as 3:2009cv06360
Plaintiff:
MARY JANE SCALAFANI
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PETE GEREN, SUZANNE OPRISKO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SCALAFANI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY et al
as 3:2009cv01516
Plaintiff:
MARY JANE SCALAFANI
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SUZANNE OPRISKO, JOHN DOE OFFICERS and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
International Guards Union of America, Local 106 vs. C&D Security, Inc., et al
as 2:2007cv00523
Plaintiff:
International Guards Union of America, Local 106
Defendant:
C & D Security, Inc. and United States Department of the Army
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
International Guards Union of America, Local 106 vs. C&D Security, Inc., et al
as 1:2007cv00523
Plaintiff:
International Guards Union of America, Local 106
Defendant:
C & D Security, Inc. and United States Department of the Army
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
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.
