Search court records on party:panasonic, page 97

Order Returned by Court ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MEDIATION; NOT SIGNED

Document DAVID ROJAS INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AUTOMATION STATION L.L.C. VS. ERIC RUBIO AND PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA D/B/A PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS COMPANY OF AMERICA, C...

Hidalgo CountyDistrict Clerks Reviewed By: Jose Hernandez

On , the Court considered the Motion for Mediation of Plaintiff, DAVID ROJAS INDIVIDUALLYand D/B/A AUTOMATION STATION, LLC, as Movant herein and after considering the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that this case is appropriate for mediation pursuant to Section 154.001, et.

The Mediatorshall not be a witness nor may the Mediator's records be subpoenaedor used as evidence in the conduct of any proceedingsheld in the case before this court.

Hidalgo CountyDistrict Clerks Reviewed By: Jose Hernandez Each party and their counsel will be bound by the Rules of Mediation provided by the Court and shall complete any information formsas are requested by the Mediator.

Namedparties herein shall be present during the entire mediation proceedings and each corporate party must be represented by an appropriate officer with the authority to negotiate a settlement of the case before this court.

Cite Document

Analyze

Proposed Order DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MEDIATION

Document DAVID ROJAS INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AUTOMATION STATION L.L.C. VS. ERIC RUBIO AND PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA D/B/A PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS COMPANY OF AMERICA, C...

Log in to see more

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 733399-1

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 733399-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 9, 2021)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

USA v. A GROUP OF CELL PHONES: (1) PANASONIC SD 16 MB CARD, BQ4EC0...

Docket 2:13-mj-02811, California Central District Court (Oct. 23, 2013)

Cite Docket

Analyze

Search within this case

Granting Respondents' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation No. 732984

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 732984-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 4, 2021)

(February 4, 2021) On February 3, 2021, Respondents Arlo Technologies Inc., SimpliSafe, Inc., and Vivint Smart Home, Inc. filed a motion to extend their deadline to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (Motion Docket No. 1242-001).

There is no opposition to the extension.

Respondents submit that they need more time to fully investigate the allegations in the Complaint and to compile the information required by Commission Rule 210.13(b) (19 C.F.R. § 210.13(b)).

There being no opposition and for good cause shown, Motion Docket No. 1242-001 is hereby GRANTED.

The deadline for filing responses to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation shall be extended to February 25, 2021.

Cite Document

Analyze