Cases 11 - 20 of 33
Breaux v. NuVasive, Inc.
as 1:2017cv00314
Plaintiff:
Colette Breaux
Defendant:
NuVasive, Inc. , John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Danny Popov, et al v. Nuvasive, Inc., et al
as 17-80055
Plaintiff - Respondent:
DANNY POPOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated and BRAD MAUSS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated
Defendant - Petitioner:
NUVASIVE, INC., ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV and MICHAEL J. LAMBERT
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Saudi Imas Co. et al
as 3:2015cv01958
Plaintiff:
Nuvasive, Inc.
Defendant:
Saudi Imas Co. and DOES 1 through 20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
NuVasive, Inc. v. Intodis BV et al
as 3:2015cv01893
Plaintiff:
NuVasive, Inc.
Defendant:
Intodis BV and Does 1 through 20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
NuVasive, Inc v. Hubbard
as 2:2014cv01704
Plaintiff:
NuVasive, Inc
Defendant:
Christopher L. Hubbard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Neurovision Medical Products I v. Nuvasive, Inc.
as 14-56672
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NEUROVISION MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC.
Defendant - Appellant:
NUVASIVE, INC.
Neurovision Medical Products I v. Nuvasive, Inc.
as 14-56449
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NEUROVISION MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC.
Defendant - Appellant:
NUVASIVE, INC.
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Medical, Inc. et al
as 3:2013cv02077
Plaintiff:
Nuvasive, Inc.
Defendant:
Madsen Medical, Inc., Kris Madsen and DOES 1-10, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mauss v. Nuvasive, Inc. et al
as 3:2013cv02005
Plaintiff:
Danny Popov
Defendant:
Nuvasive, Inc., Alexis V. Lukianov, Kevin C. O'Boyle and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Cunningham v. UCSF Spine Center et al
as 3:2013cv01978
Plaintiff:
Lorenzo R. Cunningham
Defendant:
UCSF Spine Center, Nuvasive Inc and Osteotech Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
