Toyrrific LLC v. Edvin Karapetian et al
| Toyrrific LLC |
| Lena Amerkhanian, Edo Trading Inc, Edvin Karapetian and Edward Minasyan |
| 2:2012cv04499 |
| May 23, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| Otis D Wright |
| 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
123
JUDGMENT 113 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In light of findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Courts July 20, 2016, Order Granting Defendants Revised Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 113), it is hereby ORDERED that judgment shall be entered as follows: 1. Plaintiff Toyrrific, LLC shall take nothing; and 2. Judgment for Defendants Edvin Karapetian, Edward Minasyan, Lena Amerkhanian, and EDO Trading, Inc. (vv) (Main Document 123 replaced on 10/26/2016) (vv).
|
|
Filing
119
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 115 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 9/27/2016 (lc).
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS REVISED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 103 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lc). Modified on 7/20/2016 (lc).
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT 96 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court finds that it would be aided in spreading the mandate by a re-briefing of the issues, and by presentation of any addition al relevant or clarifying evidence. Accordingly, Defendants shall file a revised Motion for Summary Judgment on only the issues that the Ninth Circuit has instructed this Court to consider on remand. Defendants shall file its revised Motion for Summary Judgment as a regularly noticed motion, and shall set the matter for hearing no later than March 21, 2016. The Court DENIES Defendants Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration as moot. (lc). Modified on 12/17/2015 (lc).
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 74 .If appropriate Defendants may renew their motion within 30 days of the entry of the Ninth Circuits mandate by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 5/15/2013.(lc).
|
|
Filing
72
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In light of findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Courts April 165, 2013 Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment shall be entered as follows: Plaintiff Toyrrific, LLC shall take nothing; Judgment for Defendants Edvin Karapetian, Edward Minasyan, LenaAmerkhanian, and EDO Trading, Inc. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND the Courts scheduling order 47 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (lc) .Modified on 3/19/2013 (lc).
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT TOYRRIFIC LLCS SPECIALMOTION TO STRIKE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 (ANTISLAPP) 33 and awards Toyrrific its attorneys fees and costs associated with bringing the motion by Judge Otis D Wright, II (lc). Modified on 10/26/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: Defendants Edvin Karapetian, Edward Minasyan, Lena Amerkhanian, and EDO Trading, Inc. Motion is GRANTED with respect to Toyrrifics first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh claims. The Motion with respect to Toyrrifics fifth claim for breach of contract is DENIED 24 . (lc) Modified on 8/16/2012 (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.
