Antitrust Cases filed in California
Cases 1 - 10 of 11
In re HIV Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2019cv02573
Plaintiff: Peter Staley, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Gregg S. Gonsalves, PhD and others
Defendant: Johnson & Johnson Inc., E. R. Squibb & Sons, LLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and others
Amicus Curiae: HIV Organizations and Federal Trade Commission
Respondent: State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General
Petitioner: Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust and John F Cogan
Interested Party: Designating non-party Aurobindo USA, Inc., Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Strides Pharma, Inc.
Not Classified By Court: Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Cipla USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2013cv01877
Plaintiff: State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs
Defendant: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Korea, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05230
Plaintiff: The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o , The State of Arizona by its Attorney GeneralTom Horne , The State of Arkansas by its Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and others
Defendant: Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California et al v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05229
Plaintiff: The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of Florida et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2011cv06205
Plaintiff: State of Florida , Office of the Attorney General and Department of Legal Affairs
Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc., LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. and others
Pecial_master: Charles A. Legge
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
State of Florida et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al
as 4:2011cv06205
Plaintiff: State of Florida , Office of the Attorney General and Department of Legal Affairs
Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc., LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. AU Optronics Corporation et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2010cv03517
Plaintiff: State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs
Defendant: AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Chimei Innolux Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25
In Re: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2010md02143
Plaintiff: Acer America Corporation, Acer Inc., Alex Afanasyev and others
Defendant: BenQ America Corp., BenQ Corporation, Hitachi, Ltd. and others
Petitioner: John Doe 1 and Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc.
Other: Christopher Andrews, Debbie Bosse, Mr. Stephen Field and others
Not Yet Classified: All Parties, Amazon.com, Inc. and Apple Inc.
Intervenor: Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology and U.S. Department of J Antitrust Division
Interested Party: Patrick S. Sweeney, Gregory Starrett and Newegg Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation
as 4:2007cv05944
Plaintiff: ABC Appliance, Inc., Janet Ackerman, James E. Allee and others
Defendant: Technicolor S.A, Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. and others
Respondent: Alan Frankel
Interested Party: Wettstein & Sons, Inc, Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. and others
Intervenor: State of Illinois, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division and State of Oregon
Other: Douglas W. St. John, Donnie Clifton, Harry Garavanian and others
Not Yet Classified: State of Connecticut, YRC, INC., Douglas A. Kelley and others
Special Master: James Larson, Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Honorable Charles A. Legge and others
Petitioner: Jonathan Rich
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2007md01827
Defendant: Toshiba Mobile Display Company, Ltd., Sony Corporation, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Tammy Long, Judd Eliasoph, Robert Harmon and others
Intervenor: Leah Nylen, Chris Donnelly, State of Mississippi and others
Special Master: Martin Quinn, Mr. Daniel Weinstein and Fern M Smith
Not Classified By Court: Julius N. Dunmore, Jr., Stefan Rest, Dale Keena and others
Counter Defendant: Rockwell Automation Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Acer America Corporation and others
Interested Party: Douglas C. Giordan, Joseph M. Alioto, Alexandra Brudy and others
Counter Claimant: LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.
Amicus Curiae: State of South Carolina and State of California
Claimant: Tiffany and Company, CA Technologies, Inc., American University and others
Trustee: Charles W Daff
Petitioner: Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology
3Rd Party Defendant: Ricoh Electronics, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1

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?