Cases 21 - 30 of 74
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant:
Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court:
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae:
American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant:
Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party:
Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner:
Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of California et al v. David Bernhardt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior et al
as 4:2021cv00440
Plaintiff:
State of North Carolina, State of Minnesota, State of Maryland and others
Defendant:
Wilbur Ross, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Richard Mark, et al v. Shamir USA, Inc., et al
as 20-56280
Plaintiff:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF FLORIDA and others
Defendant / Appellee:
SHAMIR USA, INC., SHAMIR OPTICAL INDUSTRY, LTD., SHAMIR OPTICA HOLDINGS A.C.S. LTD. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD MARK, Relator; ex rel United States of America
State of California et al v. Council on Environmental Quality et al
as 3:2020cv06057
Plaintiff:
State of North Carolina, State of Minnesota, State of Maryland and others
Defendant:
Mary Neumayr and Council on Environmental Quality
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
State of California, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 20-16606
Defendant / Appellee:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE OF TENNESSEE, STATE OF OHIO and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW JERSEY and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICHAEL SACKETT, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors and CHANTELL SACKETT
People of the State of California v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
as 4:2020cv05860
Defendant:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Plaintiff:
People of the State of California, Attorney State of Minnesota, District of Columbia and others
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1156
State of California et al v. Wheeler et al
as 3:2020cv04869
Defendant:
andrew r. wheeler and united states environmental protection agency
Plaintiff:
state of north carolina, state of minnesota, state of maryland and others
Intervenor:
Montana, State of, Arkansas, State of, National Hydropower Association and others
Intervenor Defendant:
State of Texas, State of West Virginia, State of Montana and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
People of the State of California v. Betsy Devos
as 4:2020cv04717
Plaintiff:
State of Hawaii, People of the State of California, New Jersey, State of and others
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Education and Betsy DeVos
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking
as 3:2020cv04636
Defendant:
Andrew R. Wheeler and US Environmental Protection Agency
Plaintiff:
Idaho Rivers United, California Trout, American Whitewater and others
Intervenor Defendant:
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Petroleum Institute and National Hydropower Association
Intervenor:
Montana, State of, Mississippi, State of, Arkansas, State of and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Zachary Silbersher, et al v. Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, et al
as 20-16256
Not Classified By Court:
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Plaintiff:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF FLORIDA and others
Defendant:
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and others
Defendant / Appellant:
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH
Plaintiff / Appellee:
ZACHARY SILBERSHER, Relator
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.
