MAG Aerospace Industries Inc v. B/E Aerospace Inc
| MAG Aerospace Industries Inc |
| B/E Aerospace Inc |
| 2:2013cv06089 |
| August 20, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| S. James Otero |
| Patent |
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
418
FINAL JUDGMENT 416 by Judge S. James Otero: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant B/E Aerospace Inc. and against Plaintiff MAG Aerospace Industries LLC on (a) all claims MAG asserted against B/E Aerospace Inc. and (b) B/E Aerospace Inc.s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims. 2. B/E Aerospace Inc.s First, Second and Third Counterclaims seeking a judicial declaration and determination that each of the Asserted Patents are invalidare hereby dismissed. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
212
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN REDACTIONS IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 62 by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/27/2014. (see attached) The Court orders whichever party wishes the foregoing to remain out of the public record to show cause within 10 days of the date of this order, if any it has, why the foregoing redacted material should not be made available to the public. (jm)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN REDACTIONS IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 167 by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/20/2014. (see attached) The remaining redactions in document number 1 67 (the "excess redactions") do not appear to be appropriate. Given that plaintiff has designated this information as confidential, the Court orders plaintiff to show cause within 10 days of the date of this order, if any it has, why the excess redactions should not be made available to the public. To the extent defendant desires to respond to plaintiff's submission, it may do so within 5 days thereafter. Any submissions by plaintiff or defendant in response to this order may be filed under seal. (jm)
|
|
Filing
44
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm re Stipulation for Protective Order 38 NOTE CHANGES MADE BY COURT: (see attached) (jm)
|
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
| Search for this case: MAG Aerospace Industries Inc v. B/E Aerospace Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: B/E Aerospace Inc | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: MAG Aerospace Industries Inc | |
| Represented By: | Erwin Lee Cena |
| Represented By: | Emil W Herich |
| Represented By: | Steven David Moore |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
