David Jose Dong Ryu v. Fashion.net et al
| David Jose Dong Ryu |
| 3 Stars Mentoring, Bee 3 Stars Corp., Does, Fashiongo.net, Ho Mok Lee, NHN and U.S. Copyright Office |
| 2:2017cv00926 |
| February 3, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| 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
42
JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants FashionGo.Net; Bee 3 Stars Corp.; 3 Stars Mentoring; and Ho Mok Lee and against Plaintiff David Jose Dong Ryu. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
|
|
Filing
22
(IN CHAMBERS) 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 May 30, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed as to defend ants NHN and U.S. Copyright Office for lack of prosecution. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a written response on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. This action will be dismissed as to defendants NHN and U.S. Copyright Office if a written response demonstrating good cause is not filed by the date indicated above. (iv)
|
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.
