Cases 11 - 20 of 448
Wanjuan Media (Tianjin) Co. LTD v. Amazon.com, Inc.
as 24-899
Plaintiff:
WANJUAN MEDIA (TIANJIN) CO. LTD and Pilot Film And Television Media (Tianjin) Co., LTD.
Defendant:
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5
Amazon.com Services LLC v. NLRB
as 24-1548
Petitioner:
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
as 24-1633
Appellant:
WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
as 24-1634
Appellant:
WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
Hogan, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
as 24-1893
Plaintiff:
ANGELA HOGAN, ANDREA SEBERSON and CHRISTOPHER HOPPER
Defendant:
AMAZON.COM, INC.
ENDRES v. AIR CANADA, INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00883
Plaintiff:
STEVEN ENDRES and STEVEN P. ENDRES
Defendant:
AIR CANADA, INC., AIR FRANCE-KLM S.A., ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
AlmondNet, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
as 24-1427
Appellant:
ALMONDNET, INC.
Appellee:
META PLATFORMS, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and others
Morales v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles
as 24-536
Petitioner:
HERIBERTO MORALES, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Not Classified By Court:
ACTIV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, formerly known as Doe 2, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., formerly known as Doe 1 and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting
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.
