• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 54-68 of 7,911 results

No. 126 Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and PATRICK J. BUMATAY) The amicus brief ...

Document Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op, et al v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al, 19-56514, No. 126 (9th Cir. May. 24, 2021)
Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122448, DktEntry: 126, Page 1 of 2
D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021 by Public Citizen, Inc. is filed.
No paper copies are required at this time.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 103 Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and PATRICK J. BUMATAY) Defendants-Appellants ...

Document Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op, et al v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al, 19-56514, No. 103 (9th Cir. May. 5, 2021)
D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Defendants-Appellants Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal as to them (Dkt. No. 102) is granted.
This appeal is dismissed as to Appellants Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL only.
This order constitutes the mandate as to Appellants Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 101 Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and PATRICK J. BUMATAY): A judge of this ...

Document Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op, et al v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al, 19-56514, No. 101 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021)
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
A judge of this court has called for a vote to determine whether this case should be reheard en banc.
The parties are directed to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions as to whether this case should be reheard en banc.
The parties should specifically discuss whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires a district court to find that no more than a “de minimis” number of class members are uninjured before certifying a class.
The briefs shall not exceed 15 pages or 4,200 words and shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 96 MANDATE ISSUED

Document In re: Processed Egg Products, 20-1127, No. 96 (3rd Cir. Apr. 21, 2021)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-md-02002) District Judge: Hon.
Argued January 26, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and HORAN,* District Judge.
* Honorable Marilyn J. Horan, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
These causes came to be considered on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were argued on January 26, 2021.
On consideration whereof, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the order of the District Court entered on January 7, 2020 is hereby AFFIRMED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 95 ORDER (SMITH, Chief Judge MCKEE, CHAGARES, JORDAN, SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, BIBAS, MATEY, Circuit ...

Document In re: Processed Egg Products, 20-1127, No. 95 (3rd Cir. Apr. 13, 2021)
Judge Horan’s vote is limited to panel rehearing only.
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellants The Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc., Walgreen Co., Hy-Vee, Inc., Albertsons LLC, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., H.E.
Butt Grocery Company, SuperValu Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Giant Eagle, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. in the above- captioned matter has been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all other available circuit judges of the Court in regular active service.
No judge who concurred in the decision asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the Court in regular active service who are not disqualified did not vote for rehearing by the Court en banc.
Dated: April 13, 2021 CJG/cc: All Counsel of Record
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 401 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER These cases are before the court on a discovery dispute regarding ...

Document Alaska Air Group Inc et al v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:21-cv-01209, No. 401 (N.D.Ala. Jan. 30, 2024)
On October 20, 2023, the court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the MDL Expert Reports should be produced as fact discovery in these cases.
The scope of discovery is broad, and its purpose is to empower parties “to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).
In reply, Plaintiffs assert that the expert reports (1) have been properly requested, (2) are relevant, (3) are discoverable, (4) are needed to conduct fact discovery, and (5) contain admissible evidence.
Production of the Prior Expert Reports is Proportional to the Needs of the Case “Proportionality under Rule 26 encompasses the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” In re: Takata Airbag Prod.
The amount in controversy is substantial because Plaintiffs -- organizations large enough to self-fund their medical plans -- seek treble damages under the Sherman Act.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

FILED OPINION (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and PATRICK J. BUMATAY) Pursuant to Federal ...

Document Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op, et al v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al, 19-56514 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021)
The panel nonetheless concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not resolving the factual disputes necessary to decide the predominance requirement before certifying the classes.
Despite finding “potential flaws” in Plaintiffs’ experts’ methodology, the court nonetheless concluded it was “reliable and capable of proving impact” and that the jury could determine whether liability and damages were proven.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 102 JUDGMENT, Affirmed

Document In re: Processed Egg Products, 20-1045, No. 102 (3rd Cir. Mar. 15, 2021)
Motion for Judgment
Michael A. Lindsay Dorsey & Whitney 50 South Sixth Street Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Counsel for Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Butt Grocery Company, Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Supervalu Inc., Giant Eagle, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 2 Along with several other defendants, the remainder of whom settled prior to trial.
They reason that because the Direct Action Plaintiffs repeatedly defined the alleged conspiracy by the three methods, the instruction and question naturally mirrored their claims.
The Rule of Reason Appellants argue the District Court erred by declining to instruct the jury that the conduct here constituted a per se violation of the Section 1.
There, we explained the rule of reason applied because the UEP Certified Program had pro-competitive benefits and “was not an express agreement to reduce the supply of eggs, much less to fix prices.” Id. at 728.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 93 JUDGMENT, Affirmed

Document In re: Processed Egg Products, 20-1127, No. 93 (3rd Cir. Mar. 15, 2021)
Motion for Judgment
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-md-02002) District Judge: Hon.
Argued January 26, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and HORAN,* District Judge.
* Honorable Marilyn J. Horan, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
These causes came to be considered on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were argued on January 26, 2021.
On consideration whereof, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the order of the District Court entered on January 7, 2020 is hereby AFFIRMED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0663, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 14, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)
Case Type3410 Anti-Trust
Tags3410 Anti-Trust, 3410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Coborn's Incorporated
Plaintiff D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
Plaintiff National Restaurant Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0584, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 14, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)
Case Type3410 Anti-Trust
Tags3410 Anti-Trust, 3410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Coborn's Incorporated
Plaintiff D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
Plaintiff National Restaurant Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0606, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 14, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)
Case Type3410 Anti-Trust
Tags3410 Anti-Trust, 3410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Coborn's Incorporated
Plaintiff D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
Plaintiff National Restaurant Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0497, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 13, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)
Case Type3410 Anti-Trust
Tags3410 Anti-Trust, 3410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Coborn's Incorporated
Plaintiff D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
Plaintiff National Restaurant Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0480, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 10, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)
Case Type3410 Anti-Trust
Tags3410 Anti-Trust, 3410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Coborn's Incorporated
Plaintiff D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
Plaintiff National Restaurant Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

In re Payment Card Interchange

Docket 14-0567, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Feb. 10, 2014)
Anti-Trust (Appeals)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>