Daniel Henderson v. Matthew Lindland et al
| Daniel Henderson |
| Matthew Lindland, Team Quest Fight Club, LLC and Does |
| 2:2011cv01350 |
| February 14, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David T Bristow |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Copyright |
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
113
ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT in this case pursuant to the Court's March 21, 2013 Order at Docket No. 104 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc). Modified on 7/30/2013. (lc).
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 83 AND 85 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc.) Modified on 3/21/2013. (lc).
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TREATING SPECIFIED FACTS AS ESTABLISHED 71 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 12/27/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER Denying Plainitff's Motion to Dismiss 48 and for Sanctions 49 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: For all of these reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions. (See Order for Details). (sch)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment is DENIED 11 . (lc)
|
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.
