Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 34
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
as 2:2012md02311
Plaintiff: A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc., AGA Realty LLC, Ifeoma Adams and others
Defendant: AB SKF, ALPS Electric (North America), Inc., Alps Automotive, Inc. and others
Interested Party: American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Timmy A. Curtis, Sherman Bearings, Inc. and others
Not Classified By Court: Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc., Thomas Saris, Jim Sciaroni and others
Petitioner: Sandra Singer and David Dishman
Respondent: Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A. Inc.
In Re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
Special Master: Gene J. Esshaki
Intervenor: Financial Recovery Services, LLC and United States of America
Claimant: Certain End-Payor Settlement Class Members and Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc.
Fuel Senders - Dealership Actions
as 2:2012cv00302
In Re: Fuel Senders - Dealership Actions
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc, Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. 12-11156 Doing business as Landers Toyota, Hammett Motor Company, Inc and others
Defendant: Yazaki Corporation, Yazaki North America, Incorporated, Denso Corporation and others
Interested Party: Katherine Clemons, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd., American Furukawa, Inc. and others
Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Incorporated et al v. Yazaki Corporation et al
as 2:2013cv13556
Plaintiff: DALE MARTENS NISSAN SUBARU, INC., GREEN TEAM OF CLAY CENTER, INC., McGRATH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. and others
Defendant: YAZAKI CORPORATION, YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA, INC., DENSO CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. et al v. Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. et al
as 2:2014cv14721
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc.
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. et al v. TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD. et al
as 2:2014cv14719
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD. and TOYO AUTOMOTIVE PARTS (USA), INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Inverters - Dealership Actions We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2013cv01802
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
Automotive Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products - Dealership Actions We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2014cv02902
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD. and TOYO AUTOMOTIVE PARTS (USA), INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. et al v. Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. et al
as 2:2014cv14721
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. et al v. Panasonic Corporation et al
as 2:2014cv10884
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. , Superstore Automotive, Inc. and others
Defendant: Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. et al v. Valeo S.A. et al
as 2:2014cv10796
Plaintiff: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. , Hammett Motor Company, Inc. and others
Defendant: Valeo S.A., Valeo Japan Co., Ltd., Valeo Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1

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.


Why Is My Information Online?