• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
3 results

Live Nation Entertainment Inc v. Anthem Inc et al

Docket 2:24-cv-00600, Alabama Northern District Court (May 14, 2024)
Judge R David Proctor, presiding
Anti-Trust
DivisionSouthern
FlagsCLOSED
Cause28:1331 Fed. Question
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Live Nation Entertainment Inc
Defendant Anthem Inc
Defendant Blue Cross of California
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 1 Order in 2:22-cv-1256-RDP severing claims of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. into 2:24-cv-600-RDP.(CLD) ...

Document Live Nation Entertainment Inc v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:24-cv-00600, No. 1 (N.D.Ala. May. 14, 2024)
This case is before the court on the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc.’s Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) filed on May 8, 2024 by Live Nation and the other Plaintiffs and Defendants in this action.
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, held that parties can voluntarily dismiss only entire actions under Rule 41, regardless of whether they use Rule 41(a)(1) or (2).
Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is directed to SEVER the claims made by Plaintiff Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. into a separate case and assign that case to the undersigned.
The Clerk should include on the docket in the new case the following documents from this case: the Amended Complaint (Doc. # 133), this Order, and the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.’s Claims (Doc. # 347).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT originally filed on 2/13/2023 against All Defendants.(CLD) (Entered: 05/14/2024)

Document Live Nation Entertainment Inc v. Anthem Inc et al, 2:24-cv-00600, No. 2 (N.D.Ala. May. 14, 2024)
Complaint
There are no comparable common-law trademark rights that allow a horizontal group of competitors to agree that none of them will go beyond their territory to compete against each other.
In sum, each Defendant Insurance Company has agreed with its actual or potential competitors that each of them will exercise the exclusive right to use the Blue brand within a designated geographic area, derive none of its revenue from ...
... are numerous Defendant Insurance Companies, and non- Blue competitors owned by such companies, that could and would compete effectively in each other’s Allocated Territory but for the output and territorial restrictions, almost none ...
None of the Defendant Insurance Companies simply distribute the products or services produced by others.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search