Thomas Atencio et al v. Tunecore, Inc. et al
| Thomas Atencio and Gian Catherine |
| Believe Digital Holdings, Inc. and Tunecore, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv01925 |
| March 21, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| Labor: Other |
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
196
JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS by Clerk: This action came on for jury trial, the Honorable Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJ UDGED that the plaintiff Thomas Atencio recover of the defendant Tunecore, Inc.: $49,103.36, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 6/1/2015 pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. Sections 5001(b), 5004, and costs of action. IT IS ORD ERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff Gian Caterine recover of the defendant Tunecore, Inc.: $196,816.68, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 6/1/2015 pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. Sections 5001(b), 5004, and costs of action. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
|
Filing
164
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER FOR PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT SUA SPONTE DISMISS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SEVEN AND STRIKE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties filed their Proposed Disputed Jury Instructions on 10/26/2018 134 -1. Upon review and consideration of the disputed jury instructions, the Court has identified two separate issues regarding those instructions that require resolution before trial begins. Given that it appears Defendant has no basis for requesting a jury instruction on waiver, it is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss Affirmative Defense Seven before trial as a matter of law. Both parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not strike the Proposed Jury Instructions based on California law. Assuming good cause does not exist to apply California law, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer in an effort to agree on jury instructions based on New York law, as the stock optio n agreements require. Any proposed joint, or disputed, jury instructions regarding the breach of contract claim shall be filed on or before 12/4/2018. The parties need not submit written briefing on these issues. Instead, the Court will hear oral argument on the issues on 12/4/2018 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee, before trial begins. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (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.
