Oleg Pogrebnoy v. Vitaly Matusov et al
| Oleg Pogrebnoy |
| News-Type Service, Inc., Marina Matusov, Russian Newspapers Distributorship, Yefim Doe, Alexander Doe, Aleksander Doe, Yelena Feldman, Arina Doe, Vitaly Matusov, John and Jane Doe Inc., John & Jane Doe, Alexander Greenberg and Vladimir Doe |
| 2:2008cv01080 |
| February 15, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Percy Anderson |
| Suzanne H. Segal |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| None |
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
191
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE: RICO CASE STATEMENT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court hereby orders counterclaim plaintiff Russian Newspaper Distribution, Inc. to file a "RICO Case Statement" on or before 2/5/2009. F ailure to respond to this Order will result in the dismissal with prejudice of all RICO claims for relief. The Court, on its own motion, orders Russian Newspaper Distribution, Inc. to show cause in writing on or before 2/5/2009 why this action should not be dismissed as to counter-defendants Felix Segal, Marina Segal, Felix Dolgopyaton, Kurier, Kurier Weekly, and VVP Inc. for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in dismissal of these defendants from the action without prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
|
|
Filing
185
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: Before the Court is a Reply by Plaintiff Oleg Pogrebnoy (Plaintiff) in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. In the Reply, Plaintiff asserts that Radony, Inc., which apparently conducts the business of publishing Plaintiffs Kurier newspaper, should be joined in this action as a necessary party because it owns the disputed Kurier mark. Plaintiff makes this conclusion in light of American Sleek Craft, Inc. v. Nescher, 131 B.R. 991 (D. Ariz. 1991). Plaintiff has raised a question as to ownership of the Kurier mark. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to respond to the following questions: (1) Did Plaintiff transfer or convey the business of publishing the Kurier newspaper to Radony, Inc? (2) If the answer to question (1) is affirmative, when did the transfer or conveyance occur? (3) Is Radony, Inc. a corporation in good standing? Plaintiff shall file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury answering the questions above no later than Tuesday, January 20, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. (pso)
|
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.
