TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-121

Defendant: DOES 1-121
Plaintiff: TCYK, LLC
Case Number: 3:2013cv03127
Filed: April 30, 2013
Court: Illinois Central District Court
Office: Springfield Office
County: Sangamon
Referring Judge: Byron G. Cudmore
Presiding Judge: Richard Mills
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 29, 2014 48 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION BY RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge: The Motion of Defendant Clay Gordon to Dismiss the Complaint (d/e 38 ) is DENIED. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins for the purpose of holding a scheduling conference. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by on 9/29/2014. (MJ, ilcd)

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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-121
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DOES 1-121
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: TCYK, LLC
Represented By: Keith A Vogt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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.