Cases 11 - 17 of 17
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AB ELECTROLUX et al
as 1:2015cv01039
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
AB ELECTROLUX, ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC. and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Interested Party:
BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, MIDEA AMERICAN CORPORATION, HOME DEPOT U.S.A. and others
Intervenor:
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., HAIER AMERICA TRADING, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
HENNIGAN et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
as 1:2011mc00656
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY HENNIGAN , AARON MCHENRY and CHRISTOPHER COCKS
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Movant:
CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
as 1:2011cv01549
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY , CVT HOLDING SAS , FINANCIERE CVT SAS and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. COMCAST CORPORATION et al
as 1:2011cv00106
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , STATE OF CALIFORNIA , STATE OF FLORIDA and others
Defendant:
COMCAST CORPORATION , GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and NBC UNIVERSAL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
as 1:2010cv01258
Plaintiff:
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, IONICS, INC. and AMERSHAM PLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
TYLER et al v. ALFA LAVAL, INC. et al
as 1:2010cv00351
Plaintiff:
JOHN M. TYLER and DORIS TYLER
Defendant:
ALFA LAVAL, INC., ASCO VALVES, INC., AURORA PUMP COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
DEROSA v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv00122
Plaintiff:
LACEY DEROSA
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE HEALTHCARE, GE HEALTHCARE, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
