Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Planned Parenthood Federation, et al v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 20-16070
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD/ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC. and others
Defendant / Appellant:
BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC, DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and others
Defendant:
TROY NEWMAN, ALBIN RHOMBERG and SANDRA SUSAN MERRITT, AKA Susan Tennenbaum
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 Inc et al v. Center for Medical Progress et al
as 2:2019mc00010
Defendant:
Sandra Susan Merritt, Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC and others
Respondent:
DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains and others
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 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 2:2019mc00007
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, Albin Rhomberg and others
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and others
Respondent:
Deborah Nucatola
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 of the Pacific Southwest v. Daleiden et al
as 2:2019at00032
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, David Daleiden and BioMax Procurement Services, LLC
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
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
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 17-16622
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, NAF
Respondent - Appellant:
STEVE COOLEY and BRENTFORD J. FERREIRA
Defendant:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC, DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis and others
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.
