Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv01942
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12181
B.P., et al v. Ramesh Balwani, et al
as 20-15974
Plaintiff / Appellee:
S.L., B.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, R.G. and others
Defendant / Appellant:
RAMESH BALWANI
Defendant:
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WALGREENS ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY
B.P., et al v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al
as 20-15976
Plaintiff / Appellee:
S.L., B.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, R.G. and others
Defendant:
RAMESH BALWANI
Defendant / Appellant:
WALGREENS ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.
B.P., et al v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al
as 20-80058
Respondent:
R.G., S.J., A.R. and others
Petitioner:
WALGREENS ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.
In re: Arizona Theranos Incorporated Litigation
as 2:2016cv02138
Plaintiff:
Toy and Kimberly Toy
Defendant:
Theranos Incorporated, Ramesh Balwani, Walgreens Boots Alliance Incorporated and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
R.C., L.T., B.P. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Bennett et al v. Walgreen Arizona Drug Company et al
as 2:2014cv02169
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Bennett , John Herrera , Scott Kendall and others
Defendant:
Walgreen Arizona Drug Company and Walgreen Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv02462
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Norford v. Walgreen Arizona Drug Company, et al
as 2:2009cv00625
Defendant:
Walgreen Arizona Drug Company, Walgreen Arizona Drug Company, Walgreen National Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Judy Norford and Judy Norford
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
