Plaintiff Settlement Recovery Center, LLC alleged that defendant Commission Junction does not take reasonable steps to eliminate Adware Affiliates from its affiliate networks, when it had actual and constructive notice of the adware problem.
Settlement Recovery Center LLC |
Valueclick Inc, Commission Junction Inc and Be Free |
2:2007cv02638 |
April 20, 2007 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
Los Angeles |
Florence-Marie Cooper |
Carolyn Turchin |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing
36
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ORDERING Plaintiff's stipulation and Proposed Order submitted by Plaintiff Settlement Recovery Center LLC received on 11/13/07 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (csl)
|
Filing
35
NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed along with ADR Pilot Program Questionnaire.(ama)
|
Filing
30
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper re MOTION to Dismiss [11], MOTION to Strike[12]. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Value Click, Inc., Commission Junction, Inc., and Be Frees Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (docket no. 11), and Defendants Motion to Strike Requests for Certain Relief (docket no. 12), filed on June 13, 2007. The Court has read and considered the moving, opposition, and reply documents submitted in connection with both motions. The Court deems the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons and in the manner set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Defendants' Motion to Strike. (ama)
|
Filing
20
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Florence-Marie Cooper re: Continuing Motions Hearing date re MOTION to Strike[12], MOTION to Dismiss Case re Complaint - (Discovery)[1] MOTION to Dismiss Case re Complaint - (Discovery)[1][11]. Motions set for hearing on 8/27/2007 at 10:00 AM (pbap)
|
Filing
18
STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper: Court grants parties' request that Plaintiff be allowed to withdraw, without prejudice, its prayer for punitive damages from the above-captioned Class Action Complaint. (se)
|
Filing
16
STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper re Scheduling of Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint and Motion to Strike Request for Certain Relief. RE MOTION to Dismiss Case re Complaint - (Discovery)[1] [11], and MOTION to Strike[12], Motions set for hearing on 7/23/07 is continued to 7/30/2007 at 10:00 AM. Any opposition briefs due no later than 7/16/07, and any reply bries due no later than 7/23/07.(pbap)
|
Filing
15
NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, ORDERING Notice of change of address submitted by Plaintiff Settlement Recovery Center LLC received on 6/26/07 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: No proof of service attached to document.(pbap)
|
Filing
10
ORDER by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper GRANTING APPLICATION of S. Ashlie Beringer for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID.[9] (shb)
|
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 California Central 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.