Cases 1 - 10 of 12
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 22-15102
Plaintiff / Appellee:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION
Defendant / Appellant:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC and DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis
Defendant:
TROY NEWMAN
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 21-16983
Plaintiff / Appellee:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION
Defendant / Appellant:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC and DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis
Defendant:
TROY NEWMAN
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al
as 2:2019mc00056
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
David Daleiden and Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al
as 3:2019mc80042
Defendant:
David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Center For Choice, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties, Inc. and others
Respondent:
StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston
Receiver:
Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, Inc. doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al
as 2:2019mc00009
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver:
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Respondent:
StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest v. Daleiden et al
as 2:2019mc00002
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, David Daleiden and BioMax Procurement Services, LLC
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
as 2:2019at00042
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver:
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. et al v. Center for Medical Progress et al
as 3:2016cv00236
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc, Planned Parenthood Of The Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center For Choice and others
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, Gerardo Adrian Lopez, David Daleiden and others
3Rd Party Defendant:
Regents of the University of California
Interested Party:
Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress et al
as 3:2015cv03522
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, Troy Newman and others
Undetermined:
Steven Cooley, Charles C Johnson and Brentford J. Ferreira
Amicus Curiae:
State of Arizona and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Plaintiff:
National Abortion Federation
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 17-16862
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, NAF
Defendant - Appellant:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis
Defendant:
BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC and TROY NEWMAN
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.
