Research & Search
Deep litigation intelligence across cases, judges, and legal entities
Cases
Grand Forks Public Schools named in civil suit alongside former employee charged with Child Sexual Exploitation
• Filed
Three parents, acting individually and as guardians of minor children, have filed a federal civil lawsuit against Malaun Alan Dilante Nelson and the Grand Forks Public School District. The suit arises from allegations of child sexual exploitation involving Nelson, a former employee who was recently federally indicted on related criminal charges. The plaintiffs seek accountability from both Nelson and the school district, aiming to prompt meaningful changes to better protect students in the future. The case is pending in the District Court for the District of North Dakota, with the plaintiffs identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3 to protect their privacy.
3:22-cv-03580 In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation
• Filed
The case titled In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, docket number 22-cv-03580, involves litigation concerning the use of Meta Pixel technology within the healthcare sector. The case appears to address issues related to data privacy and the handling of sensitive healthcare information through Meta's tracking tools. A stipulation and proposed order have been filed, indicating ongoing procedural developments in the case. Specific details about the parties involved or the exact claims are not provided in the available information.
1:24-cv-03259 Margul et al v. Evolve Bank & Trust et al
• Filed
The case titled Margul et al v. Evolve Bank & Trust et al, docket number 24-cv-03259, involves plaintiffs Margul and others bringing claims against Evolve Bank & Trust and additional defendants. Specific details of the claims are not publicly available due to a leave to restrict order, which limits access to certain filings or information in the case. The nature of the dispute, underlying facts, and legal arguments remain confidential as a result of this restriction. Because the court and detailed case documents are not disclosed, the procedural posture and substantive issues are unclear. The leave to restrict suggests sensitive or proprietary information may be involved, potentially relating to financial, contractual, or privacy concerns. The case is currently active but lacks publicly accessible information beyond the docket number and parties involved.
9:25-cv-81430 Walters et al v. Sharecare Health Data Services, LLC
• Filed
The case Walters et al v. Sharecare Health Data Services, LLC, docket number 25-cv-81430, involves plaintiffs Walters and others bringing claims against Sharecare Health Data Services, LLC. While specific details of the claims are not provided, the case appears to involve issues related to health data services, potentially including data privacy or contractual disputes. A recent filing labeled as a Notice (Other) was submitted, indicating procedural developments in the litigation.
2:25-ml-03144 In Re: Tiktok, Inc., Minor Privacy Litigation
• Filed
In Re: TikTok, Inc., Minor Privacy Litigation is a multidistrict litigation (MDL) case involving allegations related to the privacy rights of minors using the TikTok platform. The litigation consolidates multiple claims that TikTok, Inc. may have violated privacy laws by collecting and handling personal data of underage users without proper consent or safeguards. The case addresses the broader concerns over data protection and compliance with privacy regulations applicable to minors in the digital space. The docket entry referenced is a procedural transcript order form, indicating ongoing court management activities within the MDL framework.
Google to Pay $135M in Settlement Over Unauthorized Data Collection on Android
• Filed
Google has agreed to a $135 million class-action settlement addressing allegations that its Android operating system caused mobile devices to transmit user data without obtaining proper consent. The lawsuit claims that millions of Android users' devices automatically sent data when connecting to the internet over cellular networks, violating privacy rights. Eligible claimants include individuals who used Android devices on cellular networks from November 12, 2017, onward. This settlement resolves claims related to unauthorized data collection practices by Google on Android devices. While the exact court and docket number are not specified, the case reflects growing scrutiny over data privacy and user consent in mobile technology. The settlement provides monetary compensation to affected users and underscores the importance of transparent data handling by technology companies.
2:25-cv-05165 Mary Antossyan v. The Kroger Co.
• Filed
In the case of Mary Antossyan v. The Kroger Co., docket number 25-cv-05165, the parties have addressed issues related to a protective order. While specific details of the dispute are limited, the filing of a protective order suggests that confidential or sensitive information is being safeguarded during the litigation process. Protective orders are commonly used to limit the disclosure and use of such information to ensure privacy and compliance with legal standards. This procedural step indicates ongoing discovery or evidence exchange between the plaintiff and defendant.
0:14-cr-60256-1 USA v. Sanchez
• Filed
The case titled USA v. Sanchez, docket number 14-cr-60256, involves a criminal proceeding against the defendant Sanchez. While specific details of the charges are not provided, the case includes a motion to seal certain documents, indicating sensitive information or privacy concerns related to the public record. The motion to seal was publicly filed, suggesting the court is considering restricting access to some case materials to protect confidentiality or ongoing investigative interests. The exact nature of the allegations and procedural posture beyond the motion to seal remains unspecified.
8:25-cv-01974 Anthony Uzzi v. Bayer U.S., LLC et al
• Filed
In the case of Anthony Uzzi v. Bayer U.S., LLC et al, docket number 25-cv-01974, the parties have addressed procedural matters including the issuance of a protective order. The protective order is intended to govern the handling of confidential information exchanged during the litigation process. While specific details of the underlying dispute are not provided, the protective order reflects the court's effort to balance the parties' interests in privacy and the need for discovery in the case. The order helps ensure sensitive information is not improperly disclosed or used outside the scope of the litigation.
1:24-mj-03390-1 USA v. Soto-Chala
• Filed
The case titled USA v. Soto-Chala, docket number 24-mj-03390, involves proceedings under a sealed document, limiting the availability of detailed information about the charges or allegations. As a matter under seal, the specifics of the case, including the nature of the offense and the parties' arguments, remain confidential. This typically indicates sensitive or ongoing investigations where disclosure could jeopardize law enforcement efforts or privacy interests.
Judges & Parties
No entities found.