Cases

*715OPINION AND ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, United States District Judge Plaintiffs FKW Holdings and' Cesar Castillo (the “Direct Purchasers”) and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan (the “End-Payors”) bring putative nationwi

*1211ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 116) JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants VIZIO Inc., VIZIO Holdings, Inc., VIZIO Inscape Technologies, LLC, and VIZIO Inscape Services, LLC (collective

(Re: Docket Nos. 71, 77) ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge *973Over two years ago, Plaintiffs1 filed this lawsuit against Defendant Google, Inc. for commingling user data across different Google products and disclosing

*1171ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, allege antitrust claims against

ORDER AND REASONS SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs), together with Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. (Pentair), move the Court to preliminarily approve a class action settlement between IPPs and Pentair.1 The parties also move the Court to certify a class for the purpose of the Pentair settlement. For the following reasons, the Co

*1061ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ • MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On January 17, 2014, Ben Z. Halberstam filed this putative class action on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Californians against NJOY, Inc., and -Sottera, Inc. (collectively, “NJOY”).1

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING LUCASFILM LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated *1108Amended Complaint (“Joint Mot”), ECF No. 79, and Defendant Lucasfilm Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Lucasfilm Mot.”), E

AMBRO, Circuit Judge Cases with many plaintiffs, few to none of whom will sue solely for themselves because the costs far outweigh the benefits, frequently result in class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Prerequisites are having (1) so many class members that joinder is impractical, (2) questions of law or fact that are common to the class, (3) one or more representatives whose claims or defense

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE CELLULAR TELEPHONE ) COORDINATED C.A. No. 6885-VCL PARTNERSHIP LITIGATION ) THIS FILING APPLIES TO COORDINATED CIVIL ACTIONS 6886 AND 6908 MEMORANDUM OPINION ADDRESSING CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH FREEZE-OUT OF MINORITY PARTNERS IN SALEM CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY Date Submitted: January 11, 2022

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 341 The crux of this case is that Ford's infotainment system known as MyFord Touch was allegedly defective. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the certified classes in the form of the diminution in value caused to their vehicles by the defect. Ford no

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,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: Google Play Store Antitrust No. 24-6256 Litigation D.C. Nos. ______________________________ 3:21-md-02981-JD _ 3:20-cv-05671-JD EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, OPINION Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGL

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-2309 _____________ In Re: HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION Courtney Diana; Mark Meisel; Karen Pekelney; Mitchell Rindner, Appellants _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

7/8/2021 10:09:43 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (308 KB)

5/3/2021 12:16:35 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (321 KB)

4/6/2021 10:15:22 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (322 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,