Sisyphus Touring, Inc. v. TMZ Productions, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: |
Sisyphus Touring, Inc. |
Defendant: |
Does, EHM Productions, Inc., TMZ Productions, Inc., TMZ.com and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. |
ThirdParty Plaintiff: |
EHM Productions, Inc., TMZ Productions, Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. |
ThirdParty Defendant: |
Jacob Guy Miller |
Case Number: |
2:2015cv09512 |
Filed: |
December 9, 2015 |
Court: |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
Presiding Judge: |
Ronald S.W. Lew |
Presiding Judge: |
Patrick J. Walsh |
Nature of Suit: |
Copyright |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
September 23, 2016 |
Filing
74
JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, in favor of EHM Productions, Inc., TMZ Productions, Inc., TMZ.com, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. against Sisyphus Touring, Inc. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants MBLC Productions Inc. (formerly known as TMZ Productions, Inc.), EHM Productions, Inc., and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.s ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment 47 in its entirety. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Sisyphus Touring, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). This action is hereby dismissed in its entirety; and Defendants shall recover their costs in this action. (jre)
|
August 22, 2016 |
Filing
69
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders pla intiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than September 2, 2016, why a certain defendant should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it i s filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (as to Defendant Naeem Munaf). No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a response or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to timely respond to this order may result in sanctions and/or the dismissal of this defendant. (jre)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
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?