Voltage Pictures, LLC et al v. DOE-76.115.109.21
| Dallas Buyers Club, LLC and Voltage Pictures, LLC |
| DOE-76.115.109.21 |
| 3:2014cv01875 |
| November 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| John V. Acosta |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| 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
35
OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motions 23 Against Answer and Counterlcaimsare GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' motions to dismissBlake's counterclaims for declaratory relief and abuse of process are GRANTED. Plaintiff s' special motion to strike under ORS § 31.150 is DENIED as moot. However, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS § 31.152(3) with regards to Blake's abuse of process counterclaim. Plaintiffs' mot ion to strike is DENIED with regard to Blake's Fourth Affirmative Defense and GRANTED in all other respects. Blake may file an amended answer repleading the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Affirmative Defenses within 30 days of the date of thi s opinion and order. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for attorney fees pursuant to ORS§ 31.152(3) with regard to Blake's abuse of processclaim within the same 30-day period. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of December, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
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 Oregon 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.
