Jitrade Inc v. Charlotte Russe, Inc. et al
| Jitrade Inc |
| Bee 3 Stars Corp., Charlotte Russe, Inc., Does and MI In Fashion, Inc |
| 2:2016cv05536 |
| July 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| 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
176
JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT CHARLOTTE RUSSE, INC. 73 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Jitrade, Inc. shall recover from Defendant Charlotte Russe, Inc. the sum of three thousand five hundred and 00/100 dollars ($3,500.00), inclusive of all costs then accrued, which costs include attorney's fees awardable under statute. Plaintiff may file a bill of costs and a motion for attorney fees within 21 days from the issuance of the judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (kti)
|
|
Filing
99
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee.Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before July 27, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed as to defendants Charlotte Russe, Inc., MI In Fashion, Inc., and Hyun S. Lee for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this Order To Show Cause, on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: An answer by the following defendant(s): Charlotte Russe, Inc., MI In Fashion, Inc., and Hyun S. Lee; Plaintiff's application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (clee)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before June 5, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed as to defendants Kakipo, Inc. and Xianyu Shao for lack of prosecution. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
51
(IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Generally, defendant must answer the complaint within 21 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time per iods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before March 13, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed as to defendants Charlotte Russe, Inc., MI In Fashion, Inc., and Hyu n S. Lee for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this Order To Show Cause, on or before the above date, as evidence t hat the matter is being prosecuted diligently: An answer by the following defendant(s): Charlotte Russe, Inc., MI In Fashion, Inc., and Hyun S. Lee; Plaintiff's application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (clee)
|
|
Filing
40
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian re Stipulation for Protective Order 39 . See order for details. (hr)
|
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.
