Maravilla v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC

Defendant: Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC
Plaintiff: Tony Maravilla
Case Number: 3:2013cv01960
Filed: April 29, 2013
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Contra Costa
Presiding Judge: Laurel Beeler
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
June 26, 2013 6 Opinion or Order of the Court CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-1) In Re: Anheuser-Busch Beer Labeling Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation MDL No. 2448 TRANSFERRING CASE to the Northern District of Ohio. (farS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2013)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Maravilla v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tony Maravilla
Represented By: Reginald Von Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.