Cases

*814ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 56) EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Gregory Brod (“Brod”) has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Sioux Honey”) alleging that it violated state law by marketing its “Sue Bee Clover Honey” i

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 25. EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Gregory Brod (“Brod”) filed the instant class action lawsuit against Defendant Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Sioux Honey”) alleging that it violated state law by marketing its “Sue Bee Clover Honey” in California as “Honey,” desp

DECISION AND ORDER RUDOLPH T. RANDA, District Judge. This three-count complaint is a putative class action brought by Sean Regan against Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Sioux Honey”), the manufacturer of Sue Bee Clover Honey. In Count II, Regan alleges that the failure to disclose the absence of bee pollen in Sue Bee Clover Honey violates the labeling requirements associated with Wisconsin’s so-called

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman. Before the Panel: * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action moves to centralize this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation currently consists of eight actions,1 as listed in Schedule A, pending in three districts one in the Central

Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NINESTAR CORPORATION, ZHUHAI NINESTAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ZHUHAI PANTUM ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ZHUHAI APEX MICROELECTRONICS CO., LTD., GEEHY SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., ZHUHAI G&G DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ZHUHAI SEINE PRINTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and ZHUHAI NINESTAR MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., Plaintiffs, v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Plaintiffs Patrick Hughes (“Hughes”) and Nafise Nina Hodjat (“Hodjat”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) bring this class action in diversity on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Ester-C Company (a subsidiary of NBTY, Inc.), NBTY, Inc., and NatureSmart LLC (collectively, “defendants” or “Ester-C Co.”). Specifically, plaintiffs alle

Slip Op. 26- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Court No. 21-00049 Defendant, and WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY, Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 26- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, Plaintiff, and THAI PREMIUM PIPE CO. LTD, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge v. Court No. 21-00627 UNITED STATES, Defendant,

521 F.Supp. 1072 (1981) The UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF UTAH, defendant in intervention, Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation, and Duchesne City, a municipal corporation, Defendants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae, Paradox Production Corporation, a Utah corporation, Amicus Curiae.