Cases 41 - 50 of 62
Washington State, et al v. Chimei Innolux Corp., et al
as 11-16862
Plaintiff - Appellee:
WASHINGTON STATE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in the state, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP., CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD. and others
In Re: Lehman Brothers Securit
as 11-1982
Plaintiff:
Locals 302 & 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, City of South San Francisco, City of Long Beach and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System
Petitioner:
City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the Lothian Pension Fund
Consolidated-Defendant:
John F. Akers, ABN AMRO Holding N.V., ANZ Securities, Inc. and others
Movant - Appellant:
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
Defendant-Counter-Claimant:
RBS Greenwich Capital
Defendant:
Ernst & Young LLP, A.G Edwards & Sons, Inc., Moody's Corp. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Lana Franks, Edward Grieb, Richard McKinney and others
Counter-Claimant:
Mizuho Securities USA, Inc and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2006-HE1
Washington State, et al v. Chimei Innolux Corp., et al
as 11-80051
Plaintiff - Respondent:
WASHINGTON STATE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in the state, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP., CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD. and others
The People of the State of California et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 3:2010cv05212
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., Chimei Innolux Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of California , The State of California , Alameda County and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Wood et al v. City of Long Beach et al
as 2:2010cv03421
Defendant:
City of Long Beach, Noreen Costello, John and Jane Does 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
Andrea Malester and Tzvee Wood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
In re: Lehman Brother
as 10-2521
Plaintiff:
Locals 302 & 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, City of South San Francisco, City of Long Beach and others
Petitioner:
City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the Lothian Pension Fund
Consolidated-Defendant:
John F. Akers, ABN AMRO Holding N.V., ANZ Securities, Inc. and others
Appellant:
Booth Foundation, Inc.
Defendant-Counter-Claimant:
RBS Greenwich Capital
Defendant:
BNY Capital Markets, Inc., Roger S. Berlind, BBVA Securities Inc. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Richard S. Fuld, Jr.
Counter-Claimant:
Mizuho Securities USA, Inc and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2006-HE1
Terrence Wilson v. City of Long Beach et al
as 2:2008cv05194
Defendant:
City of Long Beach, Does, Abel Morales and others
Plaintiff:
Terrence Wilson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc et al v. The City of Long Beach et al
as 2:2010cv00826
Real Party In Interest Defendant:
American Trucking Associations Inc
Defendant:
Does, The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, The City of Long Beach and others
Plaintiff:
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc and Sierra Club
M. L. R. v. The Long Beach Police Department et al
as 2:2010cv00571
Defendant:
Larry Bautista, Does, David C. Frazier and others
Plaintiff:
M. L. R.
Gary Daly v. City of Long Beach et al
as 2:2009cv07267
Plaintiff:
Gary Daly and Gary Daly
Defendant:
City of Long Beach, Raymond Panek, Raymond Panek and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
