Marry0119
General
Total Cases1
Active Cases--
Patents--
--
--
--
Ratings
Experience
Grade
Trend
DCT
--
--
--
PTAB
--
--
--
CAFC
--
--
--
Analytics
Cases
Litigated Patents
Ratings Trends
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 10/16/20 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding entered judgment 64 in the amount of $100,000 as to certain defendant (Martin, Allyson) (Entered: 10/16/2020) | |
| 08/14/20 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding entered judgment 64 in the amount of $100,000 as to certain defendant (Martin, Allyson) (Entered: 08/14/2020) | |
| 07/22/20 | NOTICE of withdrawal of bond 26 by Olivia Lee (bg, ) (Entered: 07/22/2020) | |
| 07/22/20 | ORDER: Defendants HZBCLY at Line 4; JLETOLI at Line 5; and Z&X Outdoors at Line 9are hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Notice of Dismissal 66 filedby plaintiffs on 7/22/20. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 7/22/2020. Mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 07/22/2020) | |
| 07/22/20 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendants (Martin, Allyson) (Entered: 07/22/2020) | |
| 07/07/20 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold:The court has reviewed plaintiffs ex parte motion to extend the temporary restraining order 34 , memorandum in support 35 , and accompanying proposed order submitted on 2/14/2020 to the courts proposed order email address. The Seventh Circuit has explained "In our view, the language of Rule 65(b)(2) and the great weight of authority support the view that 28 days is the outer limit for a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party, regardless of whether the TRO was issued with or without notice." H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012). The Seventh Circuit further explained: "We recognize there will be cases where the maximum 28day limit does not give the parties sufficient time to prepare for a preliminary injunction hearing, let alone time for the district court to decide it. In those cases, an extension of the TRO pending a preliminary injunction hearing and decision without consent of the enjoined party is technically a preliminary injunction: it is appealable, and the district court should provide a sufficient explanation of its decision to allow meaningful appellate review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2). A court reviewing such an order for an abuse of discretion should take into account the urgency with which it was issued and the needs of the district court and the parties, but the law does not allow an indefinite and unreviewable extension of a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party." Id. at 845. Separately, Rule 65(d)(1) requires that "Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail--and not by referring to the complaint or other document--the act or acts restrained or required." In light of H-D Michigan, the reasons given in plaintiffs memorandum 35 for an extension of the TRO, and Rule 65(d)(1), | |
| 06/26/20 | Damages | |
| 06/26/20 | Permanent Injunction | |
| 05/29/20 | NOTICE by Oakley, Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default as to all DefendantsMOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants 58 (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 05/29/2020) | |
| 05/29/20 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 58 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 05/29/2020) |