Alexsam, Inc. v. Green Dot Corporation et al
| Alexsam, Inc. |
| Does, Green Dot Corporation and Next Estate Communications, Inc. |
| Alexsam, Inc. |
| Green Dot Corporation and Next Estate Communications, Inc. |
| 2:2015cv05742 |
| July 29, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| 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
314
ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND REQUEST FOR ORDER OF JURISDICTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case 313 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: (1) All claims and defenses raised by the parties in t he above captioned case are hereby dismissed, with prejudice; (2) Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees; and (3) The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement, and as to any disputes related thereto, as necessary. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (smo)
|
|
Filing
295
(REDACTED) MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - GREEN DOT CORP.'S MOTION TO STRIKE BAKER EXPERT REPORT AND PRECLUDE HIS TESTIMONY, AND FOR SANCTIONS [255 and 273] by Judge Christina A. Snyder. The Court finds this motion appropriate for decisions without or al argument. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for June 26, 2017, is hereby vacated. Green Dots request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court's inherent authority is DENIED. Green Dot's request for leave to file a discovery-related motion is GRANTED. The discovery deadline for filing a motion to compel the testimony of Baker is hereby extended. Green Dot is directed to file such a motion before the Magistrate Judge no later than July 5, 2017. The Court leaves to the Magistrate Judge scheduling issues relating to said motion; however, the Court intends to maintain the trial date of September 5, 2017. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
287
REDACTED MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike Alexsam's Second Amended Complaint and Special Motion to Strike Under California's Anti-SLAPP Statute 239 . Defendan ts' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for intentional misrepresentation is GRANTED. Defendants' request that the Court strike allegations is DENIED. Defendants' request that the Court strike the claim for intentional misrepresentation is DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)
|
|
Filing
216
REDACTED MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiff's motion to amend the schedule to accommodate a motion to compel discovery 193 is GRANTED. The Discovery cut-off is hereby extended to 5/10/2017. Plaintiffs mo tion for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint 181 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint, consistent with the Court's ruling here, no later than 7 days after the issuance of this order. The Court sets a Further Status Conference regarding the schedule for 5/8/2017 11:00 AM before Judge Christina A. Snyder. The parties shall file a joint stipulation regarding the appropriate schedule in this case, no later than 5/4/2017. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk) Modified on 4/12/2017 (gk).
|
|
Filing
171
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 11/4/2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which was added to p laintiff's claims when plaintiff amended its pleadings 155 . Because the litigation privilege is an absolute defense to plaintiff's claim, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's fourth claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief is DISMISSED with prejudice. In light of the foregoing, defendants motion to strike plaintiff's fourth claim for relief is DENIED as moot. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is GRANTED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
151
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams re Stipulation for Protective Order 147 ( NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT) (sbu)
|
|
Filing
143
MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer and Counterclaims 127 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 130 . Plaintiff's motion for leave to am end the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file its proposed amended complaint within seven days of this Order. Thereafter, defendants shall have 14 days to answer or otherwise respond. Defendants' motion for leave to amend the answer and counterclaim is GRANTED. Defendants shall file an amended answer and counterclaim within seven days of this Order. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)
|
|
Filing
124
MINUTES OF Motion Hearing RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 8/3/2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the 6/14/2016 Claim Constructio n Order with regard to the term "encoded" 120 . Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court hereby modifies the June Order with regard to the construction of the term "encoded," and concludes that the term does not require construction and is best given its plain and ordinary meaning. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)
|
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.
