• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 9,075 results

No. 3287 ORDER MAKING PUBLIC THE COURT'S IN CAMERA APPROVING A LOCAL SERVICE AND SUPPORT FEE PURSUANT ...

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation MDL 2406, 2:13-cv-20000, No. 3287 (N.D.Ala. Mar. 7, 2025)
(MDL No. 2406) Master File No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP This document relates to the Subscriber Track.
Appendix D, Paragraph 10 of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (Doc. 2610-2) establishes a Local Service and Support Fee (“LSSF”) that is “[s]ubject to final approval” by this court.
The court approved the LSSF in an in camera order (“the Order”) dated September 25, 2024.
The Monitoring Committee has since requested that the Order be publicly entered on the above-captioned docket.
By consenting to the Order being made public, the Monitoring Committee and settling parties are not, in any way, intending to depart from or waive any applicable privileges or confidentiality protections, including any applicable mediation privileges, common interest privileges, or the confidentiality provisions set forth in Paragraph 20 or Appendix E, Paragraph 1(f) of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 267 Writ of Certiorari filed as to Appellant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is DENIED

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 22-13051, No. 267 (11th Cir. Jun. 24, 2024)
USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Document: 267 Date Filed: 06/24/2024 Page: 1 of 1 Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543-0001
Atlanta, GA 30303
Re: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al. No. 23-1063 (Your No. 22-13051)
The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 266 Writ of Certiorari filed as to Appellant David G. Behenna is DENIED

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 22-13051, No. 266 (11th Cir. Jun. 24, 2024)
USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Document: 266 Date Filed: 06/24/2024 Page: 1 of 1 Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543-0001
Atlanta, GA 30303
Re: David G. Behenna v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al. No. 23-1163 (Your No. 22-13051)
The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 3285 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This matter is before the court on Provider Plaintiffs' Motion ...

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation MDL 2406, 2:13-cv-20000, No. 3285 (N.D.Ala. Feb. 26, 2025)
... none of the former Maynard attorneys have worked on any matters relating to this MDL while at Polsinelli, none of them have shared any information from their previous representation of BCBS-AL with any Polsinelli lawyers, and none ...
Rule 1.10(a) provides: “While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any of them, practicing alone, would be prohibited from doing so by [Rule 1.9].” Ala. R.P.C. 1.10(a).
Indeed, the ABA’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10 counsels: (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by ...
Rule 1.10(a) further prohibits any other member of the Polsinelli firm from doing so: “While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any of them, practicing alone, would be prohibited from ...
Nonetheless, Provider Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Settlement Administrator may continue and/or enhance their ongoing outreach about the Provider Settlement.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 109 ORDER by District Judge Matthew L. Garcia in case 1:24-cv-00361-MLG-LF; granting 107 Motion ...

Document In Re: Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-md-03119, No. 109 (D.N.M. Feb. 21, 2025)
Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Stipulated Motion for Excess Pages (“Motion”).
Defendants’ reply supporting their Joint MTD shall be limited to thirty pages.
Each defendant may file a concise individual motion to dismiss the Complaint.
Defendants’ replies supporting their individual motions to dismiss shall each not exceed six pages.
All of the page limits set by the Court are exclusive of any declarations or exhibits.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 212 MOTION for additional time for oral argument filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 22-13051, No. 212 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023)
Specifically, only Home Depot challenges the mandatory 23(b)(2) release on the public policy grounds that it forecloses future antitrust enforcement under the Clayton Act’s declaratory and injunctive relief provisions.
Both of Home Depot’s challenges to the 23(b)(2) settlement are complex, spanning tens of thousands of words of opposing briefing and featuring conflicting claims over the import of prior Circuit and Supreme Court precedents.
Those issues would be of substantial importance even if they affected only this case, involving the national health care market, but they will also determine the law governing the approval of future antitrust class action settlements throughout this Circuit.
The other appellants—all voluntary participants in the 23(b)(3) class—have not raised the issues posed by Home Depot’s appeal of the 23(b)(2) class and release, nor would they have any incentive to do so at oral argument.
Home Depot submits that this would not allow a meaningful exposition of the public policy and due process challenges it raises to the 23(b)(2) settlement.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 3231

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation MDL 2406, 2:13-cv-20000, No. 3231 (N.D.Ala. Jan. 6, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Paragon Offshore plc

Docket 1:17-ap-51882, Delaware Bankruptcy Court (Dec. 15, 2017)
Christopher S. Sontchi, presiding.

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 4130

Document IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 3:19-md-02885, No. 4130 (N.D.Fla. Dec. 20, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 83

Document In Re: Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-md-03119, No. 83 (D.N.M. Dec. 20, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 82

Document In Re: Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-md-03119, No. 82 (D.N.M. Dec. 20, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 424

Document JetBlue Airways Corporation et al v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:22-cv-00558, No. 424 (N.D.Ala. Dec. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 495

Document Alaska Air Group Inc et al v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:21-cv-01209, No. 495 (N.D.Ala. Dec. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 404

Document Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. et al v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:22-cv-01256, No. 404 (N.D.Ala. Dec. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 262

Document In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 22-13051, No. 262 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>