Supreme Food Inc. vs. Hai Fend Corporation et al
| Supreme Food Inc. |
| Does and Hai Fend Corporation |
| 2:2014cv09968 |
| December 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| 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
76
JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to the Court's Order re Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 49 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Supreme Food Inc. and against Defendant Hai Fend Corporation (aka Hai Feng Corporation) in the amount of $100,000.00 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Section 1117(c). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
|
Filing
32
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (OSC) WHY A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED by Judge Dolly M. Gee.The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than January 20, 2016 why the final pret rial conference and trial dates, scheduled for January 26, 2016 and February 23, 2016, respectively, should not be vacated and the parties required to brief cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint response to this OSC containing their respective positions, including, if applicable, a briefing schedule. IT IS SO ORDERED. (iv)
|
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.
