Antitrust Cases filed in California
Cases 1 - 10 of 29
In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2017md02773
Defendant: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation and Qualcomm Incorporated
Plaintiff: Ryan Hart, All Plaintiffs, Michelle Mackay and others
Not Classified By Court: Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd, SYNNEX Corporation, Best Buy Co., Inc. and others
3Rd Party Plaintiff: Jennifer Milici
Interested Party: Huawei Device U.S.A. Inc., Sequans Communications, Inc. and Avanci LLC
Petitioner: NVIDIA Corporation and InterDigital, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. Technicolor SA et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2013cv05264
Plaintiff: Best Buy Co., Inc. , Best Buy Purchasing LLC , Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. and others
Defendant: Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd. and others
Miscellaneou: Samsung SDI America Inc , SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD , Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Best Buy Co. Inc. et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2012cv04114
Plaintiff: Best Buy Co. Inc. , Best Buy Purchasing LLC , Best Buy Enterprise Services Inc. and others
Defendant: Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronics Components Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. Hitachi Ltd. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2011cv05513
Plaintiff: Best Buy Co., Inc. , Best Buy Purchasing, LLC , Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. and others
Defendant: Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd. and others
Pecial_master: Charles A. Legge
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2010cv04572
Plaintiff: Best Buy Co., Inc. , Best Buy Purchasing LLC , Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. and others
Defendant: AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corporation America, Chi Mei Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Carroll v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. et al
as 3:2010cv00630
Plaintiff: Julian Carroll and Julian Carroll
Defendant: Best Buy Stores, L.P. and Best Buy Co., Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Fayus Inc. v. Arkansas Best Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv06276
Plaintiff: Fayus Inc., Fayus Inc. and Fayus Inc.
Defendant: Arkansas Best Corporation, Fedex Corporation, United Parcel Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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
Douglas & Sturgess, Inc. v. Arkansas Best Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv05757
Plaintiff: Douglas & Sturgess, Inc., Douglas & Sturgess, Inc. and Douglas & Sturgess, Inc.
Defendant: Arkansas Best Corporation, ABF Freight System, Inc, Averitt Express and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Kenneth Fox Supply Co. v. Arkansas Best Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv02166
Plaintiff: Kenneth Fox Supply Co.
Defendant: Arkansas Best Corporation, Averitt Express, Inc., Con-Way Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation

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?