Cases

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel:* Thirty-nine defendants1 in the actions listed on Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of California. This litigation co

*921ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINTS JAMES DONATO, United States District Judge In these consolidated antitrust class actions, plaintiffs are direct and indirect purchasers of capacitors, a ubiquitous component in electronic devices of all types. The gist of the complaints is that the defendant manufacturers have conspired to fix capacit

*1058ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. Nos. 474, 475, 479, 480 JAMES DONATO, United States District Judge Direct and indirect purchasers in these consolidated antitrust -class actions allege price-fixing conspiracies in the capacitor market. The direct purchaser plaintiffs (“DPPs”) allege that defendant manufacturers in Japa

*1178ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Defendants DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.; The Walt Disney" Company; Lucasfilm Ltd.,' LLC; Pixar;’ ImageM-overs, LLC; Two Pic MC LLC (f/k/a Ima-geMovers Digital); Sony Pictures Animation Inc.; Sony Pictures Imageworks Inc.; and Blue Sky Studios (col

*1053ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendant Thai Union Group PCL’s Motion to Dismiss (“TUG MTD”) (ECF No. 205) all claims asserted against Thai Union in the: (a) Consolid

CHARLES R. BREYER, United States District Judge Consumers and auto dealers have filed two related consolidated class actions against the five leading German car manufacturers-Audi AG, BMW AG, Daimler AG, Porsche AG, and Volkswagen AG ("VW AG")-and their American subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege that since the mid-1990s, Defendants have colluded to restrain trade in ways that constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act and that vi

Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge Presently before the Court are three motions to dismiss. First, Defendants Lion Capital LLP, Big Catch Cayman LP, and Lion Capital (Americas), Inc. (the "Lion Defendants," "Lion Entities," or "Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Cherokee Nation's Complaint, (ECF No. 997). Plaintiff the Cherokee Nation's filed an Opposition to, ("Nation Opp'n," ECF No. 1233), the Motion.</

Rufe, District Judge. This multidistrict antitrust litigation alleges that certain pharmaceutical companies engaged in an unlawful scheme or schemes to fix, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids, and engage in market and customer allocations of certain generic pharmaceutical products. In this Opinion, the Court considers Defendants'1 joint and individual motions to dismiss the Sherman Act claims

Opinion REARDON, J. —In this coordinated proceeding, certain purchasers of new automobiles in California (plaintiffs) brought state law claims against a number of automobile manufacturers and dealer associations under the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16720-16728) and the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200-17210). Specifically,

295 B.R. 635 (2003) In re PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Debtor. No. 01-30923DM. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. May 15, 2003. *636 *637 *638 *639 Benjamin Hoch, Dianne Coffino, Marc Hirschfield, Michael C.

ACCEPTED 15-25-00109-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2025 5:08 PM NO. __-__-______-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

92 B.R. 605 (1988) In the Matter of PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Debtor, Re: Pollution and Toxic Tort Claims. Bankruptcy No. 70-347. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 14, 1988. *606 Kenneth N. Hart, Charles Evan Stewart, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City and Robert J. Siverd, The Penn

712 F.Supp. 1010 (1989) In re ACUSHNET RIVER & NEW BEDFORD HARBOR PROCEEDINGS RE ALLEGED PCB POLLUTION. Civ. A. No. 83-3882-Y. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. March 28, 1989. *1011 Ellen M. Mahan, William D. Brighton, Environmental Enforcement Section, Land and Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., and Martha Sosm

Arris Grp., Inc. v. CyberPower Sys. (USA), Inc., 2017 NCBC 57. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION DURHAM COUNTY 16 CVS 4050 ARRIS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. CYBERPOWER SYSTEMS (USA), INC., et al., ORDER AND OPINION ON MOTION TO COMPEL

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Thomas A. Wilkins (“Wilkins”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entering declaratory judgment in favor of General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy, LLC (collectively “GE”) that Wilkins is not a coinventor of GE’s U.S. Patent 6,921,985 (the “'985 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256.

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge Plaintiffs are adults and minors from seven states bring class claims against defendant JUUL Labs, Inc. ("JUUL"), a market leader in the burgeoning electronic cigarette industry, for various state law violations related to JUUL's advertising and labelling of its electronic cigarettes. JUUL argues that the Tobacco Control Act,

ThijfPlr.tion was fll~ m~:~1r~1 'l at ·UU t&m on~1y 'tw---t:A~ Supreme Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 91391-9 ) v.

494 F.Supp. 1190 (1980) ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. et al. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. et al. In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Civ. A. Nos. 74-2451, 74-3247. MDL No. 189. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. April 14, 1980. <

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Marvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and Wendy M. Adams commenced this putative antitrust class action on December 16, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Defendants, financial institutions who issue general purpose payment cards that consumers use to purchase go

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS MARCIA S. KRIEGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 47), the Plaintiffs’ response (# 50), and the Defendants’ reply (# 55); and the Defendants Objections (# 83) to the Magistrate Judge’s July 18, 2011 Minute Order (# 70) and ensuing Protective Order (# 82) granting