AGS, LLC et al v. Galaxy Gaming, Inc.
| AGS, LLC and Red Card Gaming, Inc. |
| Galaxy Gaming, Inc. |
| AGS, LLC and Red Card Gaming, Inc. |
| Galaxy Gaming, Inc. |
| 2:2014cv02018 |
| December 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Jennifer A. Dorsey |
| Carl W. Hoffman |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 44 Trademark Infringement |
| None |
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
124
ORDER Granting 123 Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 8/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER Granting 121 Stipulated Permanent Injunction. The Stay in this action 96 is hereby Lifted. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 7/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
119
ORDER Granting 118 Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond to 111 MOTION to Lift Stay and to Enter Judgment. Responses due by 7/1/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER Granting 102 Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs to file response to 101 MOTION for Judgment. Oppositions to Galaxay's 101 Motion is due 3/14/16. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 3/10/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
|
|
Filing
96
Order GRANTING Defendant's 24 Motion to Compel Arbitration. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendant's 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED without prejudice to t heir being reasserted in the Arbitration proceedings. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiffs' 60 Motion to Strike and Plaintiffs' 62 Motion for Leave are DENIED without prejudice. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Defendant� 39;s 14 Motion to Seal is DENIED without prejudice. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that all further proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED pending the resolution of Arbitration. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER that 88 Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/6/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER re 64 Stipulation regarding Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within ten days of the district judge deciding either the pending motion to compel arbitration 24 or the motions for preliminary injunction 8 , 15 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/17/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER denying 19 Motion to Seal. Defendant shall file an amended answer, without the information at issue, no later than April 10, 2015; granting 47 Motion to Seal; granting 54 Motion to Seal; granting 23 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER Granting 78 Stipulation for Plaintiff's to File Their Responses to Defendant's Motions to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/31/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER granting 65 Stipulation to Seal DKT. 55 -4. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/11/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
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 Nevada 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.
