Cases 11 - 20 of 223
Camille Bourque, et al v. Engineers and Architects Association, et al
as 23-55369
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CAMILLE BOURQUE, individual and PETER MOREJON, individual
Defendant / Appellee:
ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION, a labor organization, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California
v. State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California et al
as 2:2023at00369
Defendant:
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Azuma Corporation, Darren Rose and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California v. Azuma Corporation et al
as 2:2023at00370
Plaintiff:
State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Defendant:
Azuma Corporation, Phillip Del Rosa, Wendy Del Rosa and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al v. Rob Bonta, et al
as 23-55349
Plaintiff / Appellant:
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, R. J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY, LLC and others
Defendant / Appellee:
ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California and SUMMER STEPHAN, in her official capacity as District Attorney for the County of San Diego
The People Of The State Of California, Ex Rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General Of California v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2023cv01531
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Defendant:
3M Company, AGC Chemicals Americas Inc, Archroma US Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Michael Craine v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipa, et al
as 23-55206
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL CRAINE
Defendant / Appellee:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 36, LOCAL 119, an employee organization, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public agency and ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California
Young v. The People et al
as 5:2023cv00639
Petitioner:
Gale Joseph Young
Respondent:
The People and Attorney General of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Couris, et al v. Kristina Lawson, et al
as 23-55069
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL COURIS and MICHAEL FITZGIBBONS
Defendant / Appellee:
KRISTINA D. LAWSON, in her official capacity as President of the Medical Board of California, WILLIAM J. PRASIFKA, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Medical Board of California and ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California
Intervenor:
LETRINH HOANG, D.O., PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT, a not for-profit organization and CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, a California Nonprofit Corporation
Amicus Curiae:
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, COMPASSION & CHOICES, ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and others
Mark McDonald, et al v. Kristina Lawson, et al
as 22-56220
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARK MCDONALD and JEFF BARKE
Defendant / Appellee:
KRISTINA D. LAWSON, in her official capacity as President of the Medical Board of California, RANDY W. HAWKINS, in his official capacity as Vice President of the Medical Board of California, LAURIE ROSE LUBIANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Medical Board of California and others
Intervenor:
LETRINH HOANG, D.O., PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT, a not for-profit organization and CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, a California Nonprofit Corporation
Amicus Curiae:
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, COMPASSION & CHOICES, ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and others
Iniguez v. Attorney General of California
as 3:2022cv09103
Petitioner:
Angel L Iniguez
Respondent:
Attorney General of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
