Cases 1 - 10 of 115
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Kroger Company et al
as 3:2024cv00347
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission, State of Arizona, State of California and others
Defendant:
Kroger Company and Albertsons Companies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045 Federal Trade Commission Act
Gorbey v. Sickle, et al.
as 24-2145
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL S. GORBEY and Michael Steven Owl Feather-Gorbey
Defendant:
SICKLE, Associate Warden, USP Victorville Cal., GORE, Mr., First Name Unknown, Captain USP Victorville, Cal., JOHN DOE, SIS Staff, USP Victorville Cal. and others
Watts, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
as 23-3755
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD ALLAN WATTS and LINDSAY LOPEZ
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS and others
Watts, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
as 23-3791
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD ALLAN WATTS and LINDSAY LOPEZ
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS and others
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant:
Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court:
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae:
American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant:
Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party:
Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner:
Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Watts, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
as 23-3723
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD ALLAN WATTS and LINDSAY LOPEZ
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS and others
Watts, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
as 23-3666
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD ALLAN WATTS and LINDSAY LOPEZ
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS and others
Arizona, State of et al v. Michael D Lansky LLC et al
as 4:2023cv00233
Plaintiff:
Arizona, State of, Alabama, State of, Arkansas, State of and others
Defendant:
Michael D Lansky LLC an Arizona limited liability company doing business as Avid Telecom, Michael D Lansky individually as a Member/Manager/Chief Executive Officer of Michael D Lansky LLC doing business as Avid Telecom and Stacy S Reeves individually as a Manager/Vice President of Michael D Lansky LLC doing business as Avid Telecom
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Regents of University of California et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
as 3:2017cv05211
Defendant:
United States Department of Homeland Security, Elaine Duke, Former Federal Immigration and Homeland Security Officials and others
Plaintiff:
Regents of University of California, Janet Napolitano and UC Regents
Petitioner:
City of Seattle, U.S. Conference of Mayors, City of West Hollywood and others
Amicus Curiae:
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network, West Contra Costa Unified School District, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Demos v. District of Columbia, et al.
as 23-1361
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE VIRGINIA CORPORATION, WASHINGTON DC 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.
