• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 9-23 of 1,148 results

Lee v. IMDB.com Inc

Docket 2:22-cv-00208, Washington Western District Court (Feb. 23, 2022)
Judge Tana Lin, presiding
Copyright
DivisionSeattle
FlagsCLOSED, JURYDEMAND
Cause17:501 Copyright Infringement
Case Type820 Copyright
Tags820 Copyright, 820 Copyright
Plaintiff Jackson Lee
Defendant IMDB.com Inc
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Kaplan v. IMDb.com Inc

Docket 2:22-cv-00069, Washington Western District Court (Jan. 25, 2022)
Judge Tana Lin, presiding
Copyright
DivisionSeattle
FlagsCLOSED, JURYDEMAND
Cause17:501 Copyright Infringement
Case Type820 Copyright
Tags820 Copyright, 820 Copyright
Plaintiff Ellis Kaplan
Defendant IMDb.com Inc
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC d/b/a Macmillan Learning et al v....

Docket 1:21-cv-01340, Virginia Eastern District Court (Dec. 1, 2021)
District Judge Claude M. Hilton, presiding, Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson
Copyright
DivisionAlexandria
FlagsCLOSED, JURY
Cause17:501 Copyright Infringement
Case Type820 Copyright
Tags820 Copyright, 820 Copyright
Plaintiff Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC d/b/a Macmillan Learning
Plaintiff Macmillan Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff Cengage Learning, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Tam

Docket 4:21-cv-08168, California Northern District Court (Oct. 19, 2021)
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding
DivisionOakland
FlagsADRMOP, CLOSED, PRVADR
Cause18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets
Plaintiff Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Defendant Yat Tam
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Jamil Gulmann Shihab v. Triller, Inc. et al

Docket 2:21-cv-06098, California Central District Court (July 28, 2021)
Judge Mark C. Scarsi, presiding, Magistrate Judge Steve Kim
Copyright
DivisionLos Angeles (Western Division)
FlagsACCO, (SKx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, MANADR
Cause17:101 Copyright Infringement
Case Type820 Copyright
Tags820 Copyright, 820 Copyright
Plaintiff Jamil Gulmann Shihab
Defendant Triller, Inc.
Defendant Does
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

HERRHOLZ v. FLIPPS MEDIA INC

Docket 3:21-cv-00862, Florida Northern District Court (June 21, 2021)
JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS, presiding, MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY
Trademark
DivisionPensacola
FlagsCLOSED, MEDIATION
Cause15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Case Type840 Trademark
Tags840 Trademark, 840 Trademark
Plaintiff ERIC J HERRHOLZ
Defendant TRILLERNET
Defendant FLIPPS MEDIA INC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Baumgarten v. EOTFR, LLC et al.

Docket B309612, California State Court of Appeals, Second District (Dec. 16, 2020)
Luis A. Lavin, Lee Smalley Edmon, Upinder S. Kalra, presiding
Division3
Case TypeCV
Plaintiff - Respondent Spencer Baumgarten
Defendant - Appellant EOTFR, LLC
Defendant - Appellant Cindy Ballard
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ELIZABETH A GREENMAN

Docket 332019CP000038CPAXMX, Florida State, Jefferson County, Second Circuit Court (June 5, 2019)
Dawn Caloca-Johnson, presiding
Case TypeProbate/Guardianship 44-E
TagsProbate / Guardianship 44-E, Probate
Petitioner ELIZABETH A GREENMAN
Decedent RONNIE M GREENMAN
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 254 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT LETTER ABOUT EPIDEMIC'S MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS

Document Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:22-cv-04223, No. 254 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 20, 2025)
Epidemic nonetheless insists it does not have to produce any subsequent market share reports because Pex is a consulting expert.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 262 ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING FEBRUARY 22, 2025 CLAWBACK OF DOCUMENTS

Document Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:22-cv-04223, No. 262 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)
On March 10, 2025, the parties filed a discovery dispute joint letter related to Meta’s clawback of 15 documents.
Epidemic asserts the clawback was improper because the documents “uniformly lacked attorneys as parties to the communications and reflected factual, business information that is indisputably relevant and discoverable in this action.” (Dkt. No. 249 at 2.)
Meta asserts four of the documents are shielded by the work-product doctrine, which Northern District of California United States District Court “protects from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
Meta has met its burden as to the following documents, which convey messages between non-legal employees gathering information and preparing for settlement discussions with Epidemic:
Meta has met its burden with respect to the following documents: • META-EPDMS_00281048: The redacted portion describes a meeting with legal, including details about what was discussed.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 860 ORDER deferring ruling on 838 Motion for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery (ECF No. 838) ...

Document In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 860 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 27, 2025)
Plaintiffs explain that Defendants have put allegations and evidence into factual dispute via declarations attached to their motions to dismiss.
Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 860 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2025 Page 5 of 7 “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999).
“Absent proper service of process, a district court has no jurisdiction to compel a defendant to respond to discovery requests.” Forde v. Miami Fed. Dep't of Corr., 578 F. App’x 877, 880 (11th Cir. 2014).
The Court previously held when lifting the discovery stay in December 2023 that “[t]he disputed facts related to Plaintiffs’ theories of personal jurisdiction are intertwined with the merits of the respective cases.” (ECF No. 422) at 5.
The Court cannot make a determination that jurisdictional discovery is warranted without a finding that such Defendants have been brought under the Court’s authority by formal process.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 844 ORDER granting 839 Opposed Motion to Continue Briefing Deadlines in Multinational VC Defendants' ...

Document In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 844 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 21, 2025)
Motion to ContinueGranted
In Defendants’ responses in opposition to the Motion, Defendants argue that the Court need not delay the briefing process any further to allow a second round of jurisdictional discovery.
The Sino Global Defendants (as defined in their Response) argue that Plaintiffs have failed to serve any of the Sino Global Defendants properly, and it is unclear how additional jurisdictional discovery is relevant to Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 844 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2025 Page 2 of 3 opposing their motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
The only argument proffered as to why the Court should not continue briefing deadlines absent a peek at the merits of the Jurisdictional Discovery Motion, is linked to the Court’s December 18, 2023 Order.
This argument, however, disregards the posture of the MDL at that time, wherein the Court was considering the jurisdictional discovery request for multiple tracks of Defendants, and the respective motions to dismiss were fully briefed.
The Parties’ briefing deadlines with respect to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) and (5) Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 815–817, 819) are hereby Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 844 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2025 Page 3 of 3 STAYED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 227 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Document Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:22-cv-04223, No. 227 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2025)
Motion to File
On October 10, 2024, the Court denied Epidemic Sound, AB’s (“Epidemic”) request to compel Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) to produce a full export of all data associated with Epidemic’s Rights Manager account.
On September 25, 2024, the parties submitted a joint statement “regarding a discovery dispute related to Epidemic’s request that Meta provide a full and complete export of data from its Rights Manager system concerning Epidemic’s works.” (Dkt. No. 170 at 1.)
Under this inherent authority, and for the reasons stated at oral argument, the Court orders Meta to produce the on-demand export of Epidemic’s Rights Manager account no later than February 14, 2025.
“Despite this strong preference for public access, we have carved out an exception for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1097 (cleaned up).
Nevertheless, pursuant to its inherent authority, the Court orders Meta to produce the on-demand export of Epidemic’s Rights Manager account by February 14, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 799 ORDER granting 565 Motion for Preliminary Approval of First Tranche of Settlements and Provisional ...

Document In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 799 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 19, 2024)
Motion to Approve SettlementGranted
Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants seek to resolve this dispute pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in several settlement agreements, which have been filed with this Court (the “Settlement Agreements”) (ECF No. 565-2).
�e Court preliminarily finds, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed settlement, that the Class satisfies the applicable factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, specifically: i.
Contains reference and a hyperlink to a dedicated webpage established by JND Legal Administration LLC (“JND” or “Administrator”), which will include relevant documents and information regarding Class Representatives’ claims against Defendants in the FTX MDL.
�e Notice of Intention to Appear must include copies of any papers, exhibits, or other evidence that the objecting Class Member will present to the District Court in connection with the Final Approval Hearing.
All orders and findings entered in connection with the Settlements shall become null and void and have no further force and effect, shall not be used or referred to for any purposes whatsoever, and shall not be admissible or discoverable in any other proceeding; ii.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 774 ORDER granting Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Against Bank Defendants 492 . Signed ...

Document In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 774 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 13, 2024)
Motion to File Amended ComplaintGranted
The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.
Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2024 Page 2 of 4 is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.
The Court finds that Moonstone’s futility arguments do not provide a basis for denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).
For Moonstone to prevail on its futility argument, it must show that the Proposed Amended Complaint is “subject to dismissal.” Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999).
However, arguments that a proposed Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2024 Page 3 of 4 amendment is futile or fails to remedy defects present in an earlier complaint “are matters best addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than a basis to deny leave to amend.” Benzion v. Vivint, Inc., No. 12-61826-CIV, 2013 WL 12014439, at *3 (S.D.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... >>