Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Cabral et al v. Hitachi Maxwell, Ltd. et al
as 3:2013cv00686
Plaintiff:
William Cabral , Scott Beall , Theodore Wolfendale and others
Defendant:
Hitachi Maxwell, Ltd., Maxwell Corporation of America, LG Chem Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 4:2013md02420
Plaintiff:
A-1 Computers Inc, Jason Ames, Automation Engineering, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
LG Display America, Inc., et al v. USDC-CASF
as 12-70474
:
In re: LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC., LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and others
Petitioner:
LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC., LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and others
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
GLADYS BAKER, SCOTT BEALL, CHRISTOPHER BESSETTE and others
Robert Kerson, et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al
as 10-80089
Plaintiff - Respondent:
ROBERT KERSON, FREDERICK ROZO, MICHAEL FRANCIS AYERS and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
Robert Kerson, et al v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al
as 10-80087
Plaintiff - Respondent:
ROBERT KERSON, FREDERICK ROZO, MICHAEL FRANCIS AYERS and others
Defendant - Petitioner:
LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC., AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and others
Beall v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 3:2007cv03069
Plaintiff:
Scott Beall
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
Beall v. Au Optronics Corp. et al
as 2:2007cv02165
Plaintiff:
Scott Beall
Defendant:
Au Optronics Corp., Au Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
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.
