ITN Flix, LLC et al v. Gloria Hinojosa et al
| ITN Flix, LLC and Gil Medina |
| Amstel Eisenstadt Frazier and Hinojosa Talent Agency, El Chingon, Inc., Gloria Hinojosa, Machete Kills, LLC, Machetes Chop Shop, Inc., Quick Draw Productions, LLC, Robert Rodriguez and Troublemaker Studios, L.P. |
| 2:2014cv08797 |
| November 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ralph Zarefsky |
| Otis D. Wright |
| P.I.: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
150
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiffs shall recover nothing from Defendants. This action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. The Rodriguez Defendants shall recover from Plaintiffs the sum of $188,373.44. of $188,373 .44. Related to: Order on Motion for Attorney Fees for Defendants Robert Rodriguez, Machete Kills, LLC, El Chingon, Inc., Troublemaker Studios, L.P., and Quick Draw Productions, LLCs Motion and awards Defendants $186,777.90 in attorneys fees and $1595.54 in costs 148 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS 143 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants Robert Rodriguez, Machete Kills, LLC, El Chingon, Inc., Troublemaker Studios, L.P., and Quick Draw Productions, LLCs Motion and awards Defendants $186,777.90 in attorneys fees and $1595.54 in costs. (lc). Modified on 3/3/2020 (lc).
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RULING ON DEFENDANTS' ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE 116 ; AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE 34 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. As discussed above, the Court GRANTS Rodriguez Defendants' Motion for Ruling (ECF No. 116 ) and GRANTS, IN PART, Rodriguez Defendants' Anti-SLAPP Motion (ECF No. 34 ). (lom)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 76 81 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Therefore, the Court finds that the rationale articulated in its May 13, 2015 Order for dismissing Plaintiff's seventh claim for violation of the Lanham Act does not provide a proper basis to conclude that the instant action is "exceptional" for purposes of awarding attorneys' fees. For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions for Attorneys' Fees. (ECF Nos. 76 , 81 .) IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
