Cases 11 - 20 of 34
The Center for Medical Progress et al v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America
as 1:2020cv07670
Plaintiff:
The Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden
Defendant:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ct
Planned Parenthood Federation, et al v. Albin Rhomberg, et al
as 20-16773
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD/ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC. and others
Defendant:
GERARDO ADRIAN LOPEZ, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis and others
Defendant / Appellant:
ALBIN RHOMBERG
Jane Does 1-10, et al v. University of Washington, et al
as 20-80137
Respondent:
JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at the University of Washington, in his official capacity, JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and others
Petitioner:
DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual
Jane Does 1-10, et al v. David Daleiden, et al
as 20-35657
Plaintiff / Appellee:
JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public corporation and PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at the University of Washington, in his official capacity
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual
Center for Medical Progress et al v. Xavier Becerra et al
as 8:2020cv00891
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra, StemExpress, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and others
Plaintiff:
David Daleiden and Center for Medical Progress
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Planned Parenthood Federation, et al v. Center for Medical Progress, et al
as 20-16068
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD/ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC. and others
Defendant:
GERARDO ADRIAN LOPEZ, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, ALBIN RHOMBERG and others
Defendant / Appellant:
TROY NEWMAN
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 2:2019mc00056
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
David Daleiden and Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
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
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.
