Cases filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California
Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Omnity Consulting, LLC v. Doordash, Inc.
as 4:2024cv00959
Plaintiff: Omnity Consulting, LLC dba Harlem Shake (West 124th Street) and Omnity Consulting, LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as Harlem Shake (West 124th Street)
Defendant: Doordash, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 16 U.S.C. § 1361
Elizondo v. Umpqua Bank
as 4:2023cv05441
Plaintiff: MIRIAM ELIZONDO, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and Miriam Elizondo
Defendant: Umpqua Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Wettstein and Sons, Inc. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. et al
as 3:2023cv01882
Defendant: Samsung SDI Co Ltd, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd, Tatung Company of America Inc and others
Plaintiff: Wettstein and Sons, Inc on behlaf of itself and all others similarly situated doing business as Wettstein's
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Schwartz et al v. Doordash, Inc.
as 4:2022cv00250
Plaintiff: Rebecca Schwartz, Zachary Chin, Joseph Flinders and others
Defendant: Doordash, Inc. and DOES 1-50
Interested Party: Leonard Lawson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
R&J Entertainment LLC et al v. HCC Specialty Insurance Company et al
as 4:2020cv06035
Defendant: Houston Casualty Company and HCC Specialty Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Trapped! LLC, R&J Entertainment LLC D/B/A Trapped Escape Room a California limited liability company, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated doing business as Trapped Escape Room and R&J Entertainment LLC a California limited liability company, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated doing business as Trapped Escape Room
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 635
Type: Contract Insurance
Baker et al v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2020cv05467
Defendant: Oregon Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Melania Kang D/B/A Chloe's Cafe, a California general partnership, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated doing business as Chloe's Cafe, Steven Baker D/B/A Chloe's Cafe, a California general partnership, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated doing business as Chloe's Cafe and Steven Baker a California general partnership, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated doing business as Chloe's Cafe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Type: Contract Insurance
2 Andy Enterprise Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2020cv05212
Plaintiff: 2 Andy Enterprise Corporation doing business as Cuon-Vietnamese Street Food, an Oregon Corporation and 2 Andy Enterprise Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as Cuon-Vietnamese Street Food, an Oregon Corporation
Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
J M Smith Corporation v. AbbVie Inc. et al
as 4:2020cv04581
Defendant: Allergan Sales, LLC, Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., AbbVie Inc. and others
Plaintiff: J M Smith Corporation d/b/a Smith Drug Company and J M Smith Corporation on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated doing business as Smith Drug Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
Lopez v. Bank of America, N.A.
as 4:2020cv04172
Defendant: Bank of America, N.A.
Plaintiff: Francis Lopez and Francis Lopez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated doing business as FMS Accounting
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Devaney et al v. Google LLC et al
as 5:2020cv04130
Defendant: Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC
Plaintiff: Nicholas Arrieta, Michael Devaney, Sara Yberra and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

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.


Why Is My Information Online?