Cases 61 - 70 of 636
City of Sacramento et al v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al
as 1:2020op45290
Defendant:
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., Walgreen Co, Rite Aid Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
People of the State of California and City of Sacramento
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
San Benito County et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 3:2022cv06302
Plaintiff:
San Benito County, City Of San Jose, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the County of San Benito and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 3:2022cv06448
Plaintiff:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
City of Lakeport, California et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 3:2022cv06468
Plaintiff:
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the CITY OF LAKEPORT, COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, a political subdivision of the State of California and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
County of Madera, A Political Subdivision of the State of California et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 1:2022at00845
Plaintiff:
County of Madera, A Political Subdivision of the State of California and The People of the State of California, Acting By And Through The County Of Madera
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation et al v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the CITY OF LAKEPORT et al
as 1:2022cv06467
Plaintiff:
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, a political subdivision of the State of California and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
Defendant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the CITY OF LAKEPORT and McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, a political subdivision of the State of California et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 1:2022at00842
Plaintiff:
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, a political subdivision of the State of California, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, COUNTY OF FRESNO, a political subdivision of the State of California and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 2:2022at01082
Plaintiff:
COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the COUNTY OF BUTTE, COUNTY OF LASSEN, a political subdivision of the State of California and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2020cv03131
Plaintiff:
Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., Bogard Construction, Inc., Vincent Cendejas and others
Defendant:
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., SK Energy Americas, Inc., Vitol Inc. and others
Interested Party:
Craig Kelly, Carpe Carma, LLC, Marie E. Richardson and others
Not Classified By Court:
The People of the State of California, All Parties, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Camran Mohammed v. People of the State of California
as 22-70164
Petitioner:
CAMRAN ABBAS MOHAMMED
Respondent:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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.
