Aaron L Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein and Associates Inc
Aaron L Mintz |
Mark Bartelstein and Associates Inc |
Creative Artists Agency LLC and Aaron L Mintz |
Mark Bartelstein and Associates Inc |
2:2012cv02554 |
March 23, 2012 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Suzanne H. Segal |
Stephen V. Wilson |
Contract: Other |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 118 JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: (1) Plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz shall recover from defendant Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, the sum of $85,000 on the claim for invasion of privacy, and interest at the legal rate from the date of entry of judgment until the date the judgment is fully satisfied; (2) Judgment is entered for defendant Mark Bartelstein and against plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz on the claim of in vasion of privacy; (3) Judgment is entered for plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz and against defendant Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, on plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz's claim for violation of the California Compute r Data Access and Fraud Act, but plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz shall recover no monetary damages on that claim; (4) Judgment is entered for defendants Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports and Entertainment, and Mark Bartelstein, and against plaintiff Aaron L. Mintz on the claims for declaratory relief, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and violation of the Electric Communications Privacy Act; (5) Judgment is entered on the counterclaims of counterclaimants Mark Barte lstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, and Mark Bartelstein, as follows: (a) For counterdefendant Aaron L. Mintz and against counterclaimants Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, and M ark Bartelstein on the counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with present and prospective economic advan tage and business relationships, conversion, violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, defamation, trade libel, conspiracy, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (b) For counterdefendant Creative Artists Agency , LLC and against counterclaimants Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, and Mark Bartelstein on the counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with contractual relations, inten tional interference with present and prospective economic advantage and business relationships, conspiracy, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law; (6) Pursuant to the parties' agreement, each side shall bear its own costs of su it; and (7) Any request by counterdefendants Aaron L. Mintz and/or Creative Artists Agency, LLC for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees under California Civil Code 3426.4 shall be made pursuant to Local Rule 54-12. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (sp) |
Filing 42 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal, The Court has considered the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality submitted by the parties on August 15, 2012, and good cause appearing therefor, hereby approves and ORDERS entry of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality. re Stipulation for Protective Order 40 (lmh) |
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.