COUNTRY INNS & SUITES BY CARLSON, INC. v. NAYAN LLC et al
| COUNTRY INNS & SUITES BY CARLSON, INC. |
| NAYAN LLC and RAVINDRA PATEL |
| 1:2008cv00624 |
| May 14, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Contract: Franchise Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| William T. Lawrence |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 15:1051 Trademark Infringement |
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
59
ORDER granting 52 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Ravindra Patel only in the amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-five Dollars and Fifty-eight Cents ($387,295.58), plus intere st accruing at a rate of 18% percent per year from April 18, 2008 to the date hereof, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff. The claims in this action against Defendant Nayan, LLC, though stayed, remain pending. Plaintiff is directed to submit evidence of the amount of its attorneys fees and costs to the Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. (S.E.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/9/2009. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the Court (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 10/28/08. (MAC)
|
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 Indiana 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.
