Cases 21 - 30 of 34
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 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 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 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 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 3:2015cv03522
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, Troy Newman and others
Undetermined:
Steven Cooley, Charles C Johnson and Brentford J. Ferreira
Amicus Curiae:
State of Arizona and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Plaintiff:
National Abortion Federation
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. et al v. Center for Medical Progress et al
as 3:2016cv00236
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc, Planned Parenthood Of The Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center For Choice and others
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, Gerardo Adrian Lopez, David Daleiden and others
3Rd Party Defendant:
Regents of the University of California
Interested Party:
Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Jane Does 1-10 et al v. University of Washington et al
as 2:2016cv01212
Plaintiff:
Jane Does 1-10 and John Does 1-10
Defendant:
University of Washington, David Daleiden, Zachary Freeman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jane Does 1-10, et al v. University of Washington, et al
as 18-35003
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public corporation and DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual
Center for Medical Progress, et al v. USDC-CASF
as 17-73313
:
In re: CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and DAVID DALEIDEN
Petitioner:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, NAF, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., PLANNED PARENTHOOD: SHASTA-DIABLO, INC., DBA Planned Parenthood Northern California 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.
