Cases 1 - 10 of 56
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. et al v. Anthem Inc et al
as 2:2022cv01256
Plaintiff:
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Automobile Club of Southern California, Darling Ingredients Inc and others
Defendant:
Anthem Inc d/b/a ANthem Blue Cross LIfe and Health Insurance Company agent of WELLPOINT INC, Blue Cross of California, Blue Cross of Southern California and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract
Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2022cv00265
Defendant:
Anthem Inc formerly known as WELLPOINT INC doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company doing business as Blue Cross of California doing business as BLUE CROSS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA doing business as Blue Cross of Northern C, Independence Health Group Inc and Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and others
Plaintiff:
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority, Manhattan And Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 1:2021cv09101
Plaintiff:
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority, Manhattan And Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and others
Defendant:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, PREMERA and Premera Blue Cross, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Peter Hewko v. Regence Blueshield, et al
as 21-35857
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PETER HEWKO
Defendant / Appellee:
REGENCE BLUESHIELD, COFFMAN ENGINEERS, INC. and COFFMAN ENGINEERS, INC. WELFARE PLAN
Reyes v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2021cv01235
Plaintiff:
Mishanta Reyes
Defendant:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Anthem Inc, Health Care Service Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
Pettus Plumbing & Piping Inc v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 3:2016cv00297
Plaintiff:
Pettus Plumbing & Piping Inc
Defendant:
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, Premera Blue Cross also d/b/a Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Center Inc et al
as 8:2005cv00230
Defendant:
Tam Vu Pham, Thu Ngoc Pham, Unity Outpatient Surgery Center Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and others
Petitioner:
Parvin Ataby and Sonia Hanson
Counter Defendant:
Empire HealthChoice Assurance Inc, Excellus Health Plan Inc and Highmark Inc
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
State of Washington v. Franciscan Health System et al
as 3:2017cv05690
Plaintiff:
State of Washington
Defendant:
Doctors Clinic The, Westsound Orthopaedics PS, Franciscan Health System and others
Interested Party:
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, First Choice Health Network Inc, Cambia Health Solutions, Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Houston Home Dialysis LP v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 4:2019cv03791
Defendant:
Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, HealthNow New York, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky and others
Plaintiff:
Houston Home Dialysis and Houston Home Dialysis LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
Houston Home Dialysis LP v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2019cv01765
Defendant:
Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, Anthem Health Plans Inc, National Account Service Company, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Houston Home Dialysis LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
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.
