Cases filed in the Second Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Roomster Corp. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv07389
Plaintiff: Federal Trade Commission, People of The State of California, State of Colorado and others
Defendant: Roomster Corp., John Shriber, Roman Zaks and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 45 Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv04260
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045 Federal Trade Commission Act
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-96
Petitioner: Mortimer-Side Initial Covered Sackler Persons
Respondent: State of California, People of the State of California, by and through Attorney General Rob Bonta, State of Connecticut and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-90
Petitioner: Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other Contingent Litigation Claimants
Respondent: State of California, People of the State of California, by and through Attorney General Rob Bonta, State of Connecticut and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-97
Petitioner: The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. and Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma, L.P.
Respondent: The State of Washington, The District of Columbia, The City of Grande Prairie, as Representative Plaintiff for a Class Consisting of All Canadian Municipalities, the Cities of Brantford, Grand Prairie, Lethbridge, and Wetaskiwin and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-116
Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Debtor: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Amicus Curiae: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner: Plaintiff v. Defendant
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-85
Petitioner: The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Purdue Pharma, L. P., Purdue Pharma Inc and others
Respondent: The State of Washington, State of Maryland, District of Columbia and others
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
as 22-94
Petitioner: The Raymond Sackler Family and Raymond Sackler Family/Side B of the Sackler Family
Respondent: The State of Washington, State of Maryland, District of Columbia and others
People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York et al v. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2021cv00057
Plaintiff: People of the State of California, by Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, The State of Minnesota, by Keith Ellison, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota and others
Defendant: Brian P. Brooks, in his official capacity as Acting Comptroller of the Currency, The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Brian P. Brooks
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
In Re: Aggrenox Antitrust
as 19-754
Plaintiff: International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 21 Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, HEB Grocery Company L.P., Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and others
Defendant / Appellee: Teva Women's Health, Inc., FKA Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Barr Laboratories Inc., a Delaware Corporation and others
Plaintiff / Appellee: Pipefitters Union Local NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, AGC-International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and others
Appellant: People of the State of California
Defendant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., an Israeli Corporation

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?