Kraemer, Aaron v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. et al
| Kraemer, Aaron and Aaron Kraemer |
| Ply Gem Holdings, Inc, Ply Gem Industries, Inc., MW Manufacturers, Inc., Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. and MWM Holding, Inc. |
| 3:2015cv00127 |
| February 27, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Madison Office |
| Dane |
| Stephen L Crocker |
| James D Peterson |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1125 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 21, 2015. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #10 Stipulation of Dismissal. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/20/15. (jat)
|
| Filing 10 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (Fertl, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 9
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **ORDER accepting and entering #8 Second Stipulation to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/14/2015. (arw)
|
| Reset Answer Deadline: Answer due 5/26/2015. (arw) |
| Filing 8 Second Stipulation to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleadings by Defendants MW Manufacturers, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc., Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Industries, Inc., Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order ) (Fertl, Jeffrey) Modified on 5/14/2015. (lak) |
|
Filing 7
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **ORDER accepting and entering #6 Stipulation to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 4/28/2015. (arw)
|
| Filing 6 Stipulation to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleadings by Defendants MW Manufacturers, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc., Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Industries, Inc., Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (Fertl, Jeffrey) Modified on 4/28/2015. (lak) |
| Reset Answer Deadline: Answer due 5/15/2015. (arw) |
| Filing 5 Status Report by Plaintiff Aaron Kraemer. (Modl, Michael) |
| Action Requested: Counsel for plaintiff requested to promptly file proof of service as to Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc. and MW Manufacturers, Inc. (arw) |
| Filing 4 Summons Returned Executed. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. served on 3/9/2015, answer due 3/30/2015. (Modl, Michael) |
| Filing 3 Summons Returned Executed. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. served on 3/9/2015, answer due 3/30/2015. (Modl, Michael) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Industries, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc., MW Manufacturers, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Summons - Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc., #2 Summons - Ply Gem Industries, Inc., #3 Summons - MWM Holding, Inc., #4 Summons - MW Manufacturers, Inc.) (arw) |
| Case randomly assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (arw) |
| Standard attachments for District Judge James D. Peterson required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: # NORTC, #Corporate Disclosure Statement. (arw) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against MW Manufacturers, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc., Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Industries, Inc., Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0758-1509282) filed by Aaron Kraemer. (Attachments: #1 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons - Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., #3 Summons - Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc., #4 Summons - Ply Gem Industries, Inc., #5 Summons - MWM Holding, Inc., #6 Summons - MW Manufacturers, Inc.) (Modl, Michael) |
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 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.
