Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Marshall Lloyd, et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 22-1245
Not Classified By Court:
In re: FORD MOTOR COMPANY F-150 AND RANGER TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARSHALL B. LLOYD, DUSTIN DAWSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, RICK SHAWLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and others
Defendant / Appellee:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Ford Motor Co. F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 2:2019md02901
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff:
Matthew Smith, Ryan Combs, Al Balls and others
In Re:
Ford Motor Co. F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Kevin Young, et al v. LG Chem LTD., et al
as 17-15857
Plaintiff - Appellee:
KEVIN YOUNG, BRADLEY SELDIN, BRUCE STERMAN and others
Objector - Appellant:
PATRICK S. SWEENEY
Defendant - Appellee:
LG CHEM LTD., LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., SONY CORPORATION and others
Kevin Young, et al v. LG Chem Ltd., et al
as 16-17235
Plaintiff - Appellee:
KEVIN YOUNG, BRADLEY SELDIN, BRUCE STERMAN and others
Objector - Appellant:
PATRICK S. SWEENEY
Defendant - Appellee:
LG CHEM LTD., LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., SONY CORPORATION and others
Brownlee v. LG Chem, Ltd. et al
as 4:2013cv00783
Plaintiff:
David Brownlee
Defendant:
LG Chem Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc, Panasonic Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 4:2013md02420
Plaintiff:
A-1 Computers Inc, Jason Ames, Automation Engineering, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Brownlee v. LG Chem, Ltd. et al
as 3:2012cv02896
Plaintiff:
David Brownlee
Defendant:
LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
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.
