Cases 1 - 10 of 40
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. et al v. Anthem Inc et al
as 2:2022cv01256
Plaintiff:
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Automobile Club of Southern California, Darling Ingredients Inc and others
Defendant:
Anthem Inc d/b/a ANthem Blue Cross LIfe and Health Insurance Company agent of WELLPOINT INC, Blue Cross of California, Blue Cross of Southern California and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract
JetBlue Airways Corporation et al v. Anthem Inc et al
as 2:2022cv00558
Plaintiff:
JetBlue Airways Corporation, JetBlue Airways Group Health Insurance Plan, Kraft Heinz Company, The and others
Defendant:
Anthem Inc formerly doing business as WELLPOINT INC, Blue Cross of California, Blue Cross of Southern California, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Boe et al v. Marshall et al
as 2:2022cv00184
Plaintiff:
Paul A. Eknes-Tucker, Brianna Boe, James Zoe and others
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Steve Marshall, Daryl D. Bailey and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
United States of America
Amicus Curiae:
State of Arkansas, State of West Virginia, State of Indiana and others
Petitioner:
Eagle Forum of Alabama and Southeast Law Institute
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2022cv00265
Defendant:
Anthem Inc formerly known as WELLPOINT INC doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company doing business as Blue Cross of California doing business as BLUE CROSS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA doing business as Blue Cross of Northern C, Independence Health Group Inc and Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and others
Plaintiff:
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority, Manhattan And Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Reyes v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2021cv01235
Plaintiff:
Mishanta Reyes
Defendant:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Anthem Inc, Health Care Service Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
West Virginia, State of et al v. United States Department of the Treasury et al
as 7:2021cv00465
Plaintiff:
West Virginia, State of, Utah, State of, Oklahoma, State of and others
Defendant:
United States Department of the Treasury, Richard K Delmar and Janet Yellen
Amicus Curiae:
Mo Brooks, A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Ronny L. Jackson and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
Wisconsin Legislature
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
The State of Alabama et al v. United States Department of Commerce et al
as 3:2021cv00211
Defendant:
United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, United States Bureau of the Census and others
Plaintiff:
William Green, Robert Aderholt, The State of Alabama and others
Amicus Curiae:
Aleksandra Slavkovic, State of Utah, Aaron Roth and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Commodity Futures Trading Commission et al v. TMTE, Inc. et al
as 2:2020mc03928
Defendant:
TMTE, Inc., Metals.com, Lucas Thomas Erb and others
Plaintiff:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of the Attorney General and State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation, State of Texas and others
Receiver:
Kelly M. Crawford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 754
Clervrain v. Way, et al.
as 2:2020cv00540
Defendant:
United States District Court for the District of California, United States Department Office of the Labor, State of Missouri and others
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Houston Home Dialysis LP v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 2:2019cv01765
Defendant:
Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, Anthem Health Plans Inc, National Account Service Company, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Houston Home Dialysis LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
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.
