Leatt Corporation et al v. Innovative Safety Technology, LLC et al
| Leatt Corporation and Exceed Holdings (Pty) Ltd |
| Innovative Safety Technology, LLC, Kevin Heath Enterprises, Inc., Kevin Heath and E.V Technology |
| 3:2009cv01301 |
| June 16, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Irma E. Gonzalez |
| Louisa S Porter |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
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
78
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants Kevin Heath, Kevin Heath Enterprises, Inc., and E.V. Technology's 67 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims for Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Award, Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference Under Rule 12(b)(6). The motion is denied to extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' 4th cause of action for enforcement of the Arbitration Award. Motion to dismiss is granted in part w/ respect to Plaintiffs' unfair competiti on and tortious interference claims to extent those claims are based on misappropriation of Plaintiffs' trade secrets, those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Motion to dismiss is denied in part w/ respect to Plaintiffs' unfair competition and tortious interference claims to the extent these claims are not based on misappropriation of Plaintiffs' trade secrets. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 7/15/2010. (jah)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER granting 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement First Amended Complaint and vacates the hearing currently set for April 26, 2010. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiffs' Supplemental First Amended Complaint (SFAC) and the accompanying Exhibits A through G. The Court also orders that if Defendants wish to plead or otherwise respond to the SFAC, they must do so no later than 21 days after the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/16/201. (tkl)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court Denies Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the Heath Defendants. The Court Grants in Part the motion for a preliminary inju nction with respect to IST. Specifically, the motion is Granted to the extent that it seeks to enjoin IST from using or disclosing Plaintiffs' trade secrets, and from manufacturing or selling the DefNder product in the United States. However, be cause Plaintiffs failed to show that any physical trade secrets were misappropriated, the motion is Denied to the extent it seeks to require IST to return all of Plaintiffs' trade secrets in ISTs possession or control. Likewise, because Plaintif fs cannot demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their unfair competition claim, the motion is Denied to the extent it seeks to enjoin IST from competing unfairly with Plaintiffs in any manner. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/15/2010. (knh) (av1).
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER Granting 27 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Court Grants Carl & Jensen's motion to withdraw as counsel for Dft Innovative and Orders Innovative to obtain new counsel within three weeks of the filing of this order. The new counsel should make an appearance on behalf of Innovative by 02/23/10. Attorney David R Sugden terminated as to Dft Innovative. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 02/02/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jcj)(jrl).
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Heath Defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss. Court denies Dfts' motion with respect to.1) misappropriation of trade secrets claim, 2.) unfair competition claim, and 3.) tortious interference claim. Court dismisses w/o prejudice Plaintiffs' alter-ego claim. Pla may file an Amended Complaint w/in 20 days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/24/2009. (jah) (kaj).
|
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 Southern 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.
