AIRFX.com et al v. AirFX LLC
AIRFX.com and Marc Lurie |
AirFX LLC |
2:2011cv01064 |
May 27, 2011 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Frederick J Martone |
Trademark |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 132 ORDER denying 123 Motion to Stay of execution on attorneys' fees pending appeal. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/6/13.(SJF) |
Filing 121 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses. We award attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs in the amount of $103,972.50 and deny non-taxable costs. (See document for full details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/7/13. (LAD) |
Filing 103 ORDER DENYING defendant's 93 motion to seal. Pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), the lodged deposition excerpts will not be filed. Defendant shall resubmit the document for filing within five (5) days of the entry of this order. See LRCiv 5.6(e). DE NYING defendant's 92 motion for summary judgment. GRANTING plaintiffs' 87 motion for summary judgment. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of plaintiffs/counterdefendants and against defendant/counterclaimant on (1) plainti ffs' claim for reverse domain name hijacking; (2) defendant's counterclaim for trademark infringement; and (3) defendant's counterclaim for cybersquatting in violation of the ACPA. That the domain name www.airfx.com not be transferred to defendant, but instead, must remain registered with plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 8/23/12.(DMT) |
Filing 86 ORDER denying counterdefendants AIRFX.com and Marc Lurie's 71 motion to strike; granting counterclaimant AirFX LLC's 64 motion to withdraw nunc pro tunc; denying counterdefendants AIRFX.com and Marc Lurie's 57 motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 03/29/12. (ESL) |
Filing 75 ORDER granting Pedal Logic LP and Juno Holdings Inc.'s 55 motion to dismiss. Defendant's counterclaim for trademark infringement (count one) against Pedal Logic LP is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendan t's counterclaim for trademark infringement (count one) against Juno Holdings Inc. is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant's counterclaims for intentional interference with prospective economic/contractual advantage (count three) and abuse of process (count four) against Pedal Logic LP and Juno Holdings are DISMISSED pursuant to defendant's request. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 03/08/12. (ESL) |
Filing 59 ORDER granting 48 Motion to Amend. Plaintiffs shall comply with the filing and service requirements of LRCiv 15.1. ORDERED denying 56 Motion to Strike. (See document for details). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/17/12.(LAD) |
Filing 50 ORDER granting plaintiffs'/counterclaimants' AIRFX.com and Marc Lurie's partial 33 motion to dismiss. AirFX LLC's counterclaims for intentional interference with prospective economic/contractual advantage (count three) and abuse of process (count four) against plaintiffs/counterclaimants AIRFX.com and Marc Lurie are dismissed. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 12/28/11.(ESL) Modified on 12/29/2011 to include the motion was granted (ESL). |
Filing 19 ORDER denying 10 defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer; granting 12 plaintiffs' Motion for fees and costs in the amount of $2,313.00. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/20/11.(TLJ) |
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 Arizona 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.