Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Rhodes et al v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc. et al
as 1:2020op45076
Defendant:
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Beverly Sackler, Allergan Sales, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Silvers, Lea Anne Spradlen and Roger Rhodes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rhodes et al v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv00885
Defendant:
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Beverly Sackler, Allergan Sales, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Silvers, Lea Anne Spradlen and Roger Rhodes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Davis v. City Of Chicago Police Department et al
as 1:2013cv08149
Plaintiff:
Vince Davis, Sr
Defendant:
City Of Chicago Police Department, LeRoy Martin, Bradford Woods and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jon W. Morgan et al v. Carson Cheng et al
as 2:2008cv06519
Plaintiff:
Jon W. Morgan, Jon W. Morgan, Jon W. Morgan and others
Defendant:
Carson Cheng, New Century SCI. & Tech., Inc. and New Century NcStar, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc. et al v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD. et al
as 3:2008cv00494
Plaintiff:
Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc., Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc., Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., Tatung Company of America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
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
Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc. et al v. LG Philips, LCD Co., Ltd. et al
as 3:2007cv01666
Plaintiff:
Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc., Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc., Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc. and others
Defendant:
LG Philips, LCD Co., Ltd., LG Philips LCD America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and others
Intervenor:
Antitrust Division,Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Data Capture Solutions Inc v. Symbol Tech Inc
as 3:2007cv00237
Defendant:
Symbol Tech Inc, Symbol Tech Inc, Symbol Tech Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc and others
Consol Plaintiff:
Symbol Tech Inc and Symbol Tech Inc
Consol Defendant:
Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc and others
Consol Counter Claimant:
Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc, Data Capture Solutions - Repair & Remarketing Inc and others
Consol Counter Defendant:
Symbol Tech Inc
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
In Re: Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2004md01603
Defendant:
Abbott Laboratories, Purdue Pharma, Purdue Pharma, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Steve White, City of New York, Melinda Wittefeldt and others
Counter Defendant:
Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. and Purdue Pharma L.P.
Not Classified By Court:
Noramco Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Varam, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Petitioner:
James R. Dugan, II
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 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.
