Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
as 23-7973
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BENJAMIN WOODHOUSE, ESQ.
Defendant / Appellee:
META PLATFORMS, INC., ALPHABET INC., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP and others
Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv07000
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Woodhouse, Esq.
Defendant:
Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc., Nike Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-96
Petitioner:
Mortimer-Side Initial Covered Sackler Persons
Respondent:
State of California, People of the State of California, by and through Attorney General Rob Bonta, State of Connecticut and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-90
Petitioner:
Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other Contingent Litigation Claimants
Respondent:
State of California, People of the State of California, by and through Attorney General Rob Bonta, State of Connecticut and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-97
Petitioner:
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. and Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma, L.P.
Respondent:
The State of Washington, The District of Columbia, The City of Grande Prairie, as Representative Plaintiff for a Class Consisting of All Canadian Municipalities, the Cities of Brantford, Grand Prairie, Lethbridge, and Wetaskiwin and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-94
Petitioner:
The Raymond Sackler Family and Raymond Sackler Family/Side B of the Sackler Family
Respondent:
The State of Washington, State of Maryland, District of Columbia and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-85
Petitioner:
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Purdue Pharma, L. P., Purdue Pharma Inc and others
Respondent:
The State of Washington, State of Maryland, District of Columbia and others
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.
