Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Superior Entrance Systems, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Novus Franchising, Inc.
Defendant: Superior Entrance Systems, Inc., Superior Glass, Inc. and Knute R. Pedersen
Counter_claimant: Knute R. Pedersen, Superior Entrance Systems, Inc. and Superior Glass, Inc.
Counter_defendant: Novus Franchising, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2012cv00204
Filed: March 26, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Office: Madison Office
County: Douglas
Presiding Judge: William M. Conley
Presiding Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 180 Stipulated Order Following Settlement. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/20/2013. (voc)
May 16, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 177 ORDER denying plaintiff's request for finding of contempt. Defendant Superior Glass to pay plaintiff $1,000 for violations of court's injunction; defendants to remove any reference linking Superior Glass, Inc. to windshield repair or rock-chip repair services. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/16/13. (krj)
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 144 JUDGMENT awarding plaintiff Novus Franchising, Inc. attorney fees in the amount of $118,748.26 and costs in the amount of $5,997.14. (PAO) (arw)
January 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 121 JUDGMENT entered granting summary judgment in part in favor of plaintiff and in part in favor of defendant; granting injunctive relief in favor of plaintiff; awarding $12,600 to plaintiff in damages. (WMC/llj) Signed by Peter A. Oppeneer, Clerk of Court on 1/3/2013. (llj)
December 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER denying as moot defendants' two motions in limine; finding no material breach of the Franchise Agreement on the part of plaintiff; awarding damages for royalties; and providing other declaratory relief. Deadlines set for filing and briefing of attorney fees. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/27/2012. (llj)
August 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER denying defendants' request for trial by jury. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/15/12. (krj)
May 22, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 50 AMENDED ORDER granting 45 Motion for Leave to File surreply. Motion for stay of proceedings 31 to be decided after 5/24/12 injunction hearing. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/21/2012. (voc)
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 Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Superior Entrance Systems, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter_claimant: Knute R. Pedersen
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter_claimant: Superior Entrance Systems, Inc.
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter_claimant: Superior Glass, Inc.
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter_defendant: Novus Franchising, Inc.
Represented By: James Michel Susag
Represented By: Susan Elizabeth Tegt
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Novus Franchising, Inc.
Represented By: Susan Elizabeth Tegt
Represented By: James Michel Susag
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Superior Entrance Systems, Inc.
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
Represented By: Lukas J. Saunders
Represented By: Mitchell Adam Routh
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Superior Glass, Inc.
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
Represented By: Lukas J. Saunders
Represented By: Mitchell Adam Routh
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Knute R. Pedersen
Represented By: Mitchell Adam Routh
Represented By: Lukas J. Saunders
Represented By: Kyle Hoff Torvinen
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?