Kaufman v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Incorporated et al
| David Kaufman |
| Warner Bros. Entertainment Incorporated, Warner Bros. Consumer Products Incorporated, DC Entertainment Incorporated, Twentieth Century Fox Television Incorporated, Twentieth Century-Fox International Corporation and Licensing Corporation of America Incorporated |
| 2:2016cv02248 |
| July 8, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| John Z Boyle |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
132
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment and Defendant Warner Bros. Consumer Products Inc.'s Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake in Judgment (Doc. 131 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the judgment at Doc. [130 ]. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment and Defendant Warner Bros. Consumer Products Inc., and against Plaintiff David Kaufman, in the amount of $138,792.50 in attorneys' fees and costs. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/10/19. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER - Plaintiff's 116 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. Defendants' request for further attorneys' fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' 92 Motion for Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $138,792.50 in attorneys' fees and costs. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/13/19. (MSA)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER denying 88 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 88 at 7; Doc. 114 at 8) is DENIED. [See attached Order for additional information.] Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 3/13/2019. (RMW)
|
|
Filing
110
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to the "motion for reconsideration" by November 13, 2018. Any reply is due within 7 days of when the response is filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to file a response to the pending motion for attorney's fees (Doc. 105 ) is granted to the extent that the response filed at Doc. 106 (plus the two erratas) is deemed to be timely. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of the motion for attorney's fees (Doc. 109 ) is granted to the extent that the reply is due by November 8, 2018 [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/31/18. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER: Defendants' 66 Motion for Summary Judgment, and, Alternatively, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and dismiss the case with prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/12/18. (GMP)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that by February 23, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the original complaint properly alleging diversity jurisdiction at the time the case was filed, or this case will be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/16/17. (MAW)
|
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.
