Larin Corporation v. Alltrade Inc

Larin Corporation v. Alltrade Inc

Case Number:	5:2006cv01394
Filed:	December 15, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Unassigned
Nature of Suit:	Other

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 5, 2011	Filing 457 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues 417 , and DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment 416 ; Granting Ex Parte Applicati on to File a Sur-Reply 453 by Judge Otis D Wright II. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, is DENIED. Likewise, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues, is DENIED. (See Order for Details). (sch)
October 28, 2010	Filing 413 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D Wright, II: DENIES Defendants Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court-Ordered Cost Award 406 . The Court reserves considerati on of the propriety of a cost award for a date followingthe conclusion of these proceedings, at which time a prevailing party might be ascertainable. The parties then may fully and appropriately address any pertinent questions. See Footnote: In cons ideration of the procedural appropriateness in which the Court believes and for which Plaintiffs counsel so strenuously argues (see Docket # 408), Plaintiffs Further Opposition with Regard to Ex Parte Application 412 shall hereby be STRICKEN from the record as having been filed without first seeking leave of this Co (lc) Modified on 10/29/2010 (lc).

Date Filed

Document Text

January 5, 2011

Filing 457 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues 417 , and DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment 416 ; Granting Ex Parte Applicati on to File a Sur-Reply 453 by Judge Otis D Wright II. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, is DENIED. Likewise, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues, is DENIED. (See Order for Details). (sch)

October 28, 2010

Filing 413 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D Wright, II: DENIES Defendants Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court-Ordered Cost Award 406 . The Court reserves considerati on of the propriety of a cost award for a date followingthe conclusion of these proceedings, at which time a prevailing party might be ascertainable. The parties then may fully and appropriately address any pertinent questions. See Footnote: In cons ideration of the procedural appropriateness in which the Court believes and for which Plaintiffs counsel so strenuously argues (see Docket # 408), Plaintiffs Further Opposition with Regard to Ex Parte Application 412 shall hereby be STRICKEN from the record as having been filed without first seeking leave of this Co (lc) Modified on 10/29/2010 (lc).

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Larin Corporation v. Alltrade Inc
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?