Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Company Limited et al
| Lodestar Anstalt |
| Bacardi & Company Limited, Bacardi Limited and Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. |
| 2:2016cv06411 |
| August 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| George H. King |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Trademark |
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
330
JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on the claims asserted by plaintiff, that plaintiff take nothing from defendants, that plaintiffs claims for relief be dismissed with prejudice, and that defendants recover their taxable costs of suit from plaintiff pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1920, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and Local Rule 54. (lc)
|
|
Filing
257
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION SEEKING CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE COURTS PROCEDURES AS TO MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 254 .The Court has reviewed the parties arguments. In order to resolve the p arties dispute, the Court, on its own motion, enlarges the discovery cutoff date so that the Magistrate Judge may hear plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. This Order is without prejudice to plaintiffs obtaining an additional extension to seek a re view of the Magistrate Judges decision if appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiffs ex parte application is DENIED as moot. The Court hereby enlarges the discovery cutoff date so that the Magistrate Judge may hear plaintiffs motion for reconsideration at a time that is convenient for him. (lc) .Modified on 12/28/2018 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
92
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm re Stipulation for Protective Order 91 (see attached) (jm)
|
|
Filing
84
MINUTES OF PLAINTIFF LODESTAR ANSTALT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 69 ; DEFENDANT BACARDI LIMITED'S MOTION TO DISMISS 70 ; PLAINTIFF LODESTAR ANSTALT MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS 72 held before Judge Christina A. Snyder. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES Bacardi Limited's motion to dismiss Lodestar's complaint. In addition, the Court DENIES Lodestar's motion to dismiss BUSA and BCL's counterclaims and DENIES Lodestar's motion to strike. The Court DENIES without prejudice Lodestar's request to revoke the pro hac vice status of defendants' counsel. Finally, the Court reserves judgment on Lodestar's motion for monetary sanctions until the conclusion of the case. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (lom)
|
|
Filing
56
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 51 ; Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Expedite Briefing Schedule 52 . On 5/18/2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court 's transfer order to the Southern District of Florida. On the same day, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to expedite the briefing schedule on its motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and plaintiff's ex parte application are DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
49
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS defendants Bacardi & Company Limited, Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. and Bacardi Limited motion to transfer this action to the Southern District of Florida 42 . Case electronically transferred. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (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.
