Brooklyn AC-Delco, Inc. et al v. DAC Vision North America, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Brooklyn AC-Delco, Inc. and TD Optical Design Ltd.
Defendant: Chemat Technology, Inc. and DAC Vision North America, Inc.
Cross Defendant: Chemat Technology, Inc.
Cross Claimant: DAC Vision North America, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2015cv05744
Filed: July 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge: Michael W. Fitzgerald
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 111 MINUTE (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: Plaintiffs have not retained new lawyers by the Court-ordered deadline. Therefore, this Court has no choice but to dismiss this action with prejudice. This a ction is DISMISSED with prejudice. This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. The Court further ORDERS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to prior counsel at witkowlaw, a professional corporation, and Brandon J. Witkow, to be provided to Plaintiffs. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Brooklyn AC-Delco, Inc. et al v. DAC Vision North America, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Brooklyn AC-Delco, Inc.
Represented By: Mikhail Ratner
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: TD Optical Design Ltd.
Represented By: Mikhail Ratner
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 ]
Cross defendant: Chemat Technology, Inc.
Represented By: Teri T Pham
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 ]
Defendant: Chemat Technology, Inc.
Represented By: Teri T Pham
Represented By: Marjorie E Berman
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 ]
Defendant: DAC Vision North America, Inc.
Represented By: Shari Ann Alexander
Represented By: Abraham Y Skoff
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 ]
Cross claimant: DAC Vision North America, Inc.
Represented By: Shari Ann Alexander
Represented By: Abraham Y Skoff
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.


Why Is My Information Online?