Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Elizabeth Gendron et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al
as NYE/1:20-cv-02947
Defendant:
Toyota Motor Corporation
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Gendron
Elizabeth Gendron et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al
as 1:2020cv02947
Defendant:
Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., Denso Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Gendron and Roger Carter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Hudson et al v. Vitol, Inc. et al
as 3:2020cv03217
Defendant:
SK Energy Americas, Inc., SK Trading International Co. Ltd. and Vitol, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Mary Hudson and Elizabeth Gendron
Interested Party:
Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., Vincent Cendejas, Justin Lardinois and others
Not Classified By Court:
The People of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2020cv03131
Plaintiff:
Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., Bogard Construction, Inc., Vincent Cendejas and others
Defendant:
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., SK Energy Americas, Inc., Vitol Inc. and others
Interested Party:
Craig Kelly, Carpe Carma, LLC, Marie E. Richardson and others
Not Classified By Court:
The People of the State of California, All Parties, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Elizabeth Gendron et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al
as 8:2020cv00775
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Gendron and Roger Carter
Defendant:
DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA., INC., a Kentucky corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., a California corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Chanel, Inc. v. Attentive & Care et al
as 0:2016cv61528
Plaintiff:
Chanel, Inc.
Defendant:
attentive&care, Ailisishop, ALSDH23 and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
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.
