Nolan Miller Incorporation v. Kevin Scott Hees et al

Plaintiff: Nolan Miller Incorporation
Defendant: Does and Kevin Scott Hees
Case Number: 2:2017cv07355
Filed: October 6, 2017
Court: California Central District Court
Referring Judge: Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge: Otis D. Wright
Nature of Suit: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 20, 2018 69 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 42 ; DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 50 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II : The Court DENIES Hees Motion to Set Aside Default. (ECF No. 50.) Additiona lly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application for Default Judgment as to liability on the following causes of action: Copyright Infringement ; Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Conversion; Trespass to Chattels; Unauthorized Access to Computers, Comput er Systems, and Computer Data ; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Breach of Fid uciary Duty of Loyalty. (ECF No. 42.) The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion on its claims for False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition and Unfair Competition ). (ECF No. 42.) The Court awards Plaintiff $180,000 in damages ($15,000 i n statutory damages and $165,000 in compensatory damages) and $7,200 in attorneys fees. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order no later than July 25, 2018.(Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
June 20, 2018 61 Opinion or Order of the Court MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams:Defendant has not submitted the required Statement. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to show cause, no later than noon on Friday, June 22, 2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with a Court order. Submission by noon, June 22, 2018, of defendant's Confidential Settlement Conference Statement fully consistent with the May 3, 2018, Order shall be deemed compliance with this order to show cause. Plaint iff's Confidential Settlement Conference Statement far exceeds the five-page length mandated by the May 3, 2018, Order. Accordingly, no later than noon on Friday, June 22, 2018, plaintiff is ordered to submit a revised Confidential Settlement Conference Statement fully consistent with the May 3, 2018, Order. (See document for further details.) 54 (sbou)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Nolan Miller Incorporation v. Kevin Scott Hees et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kevin Scott Hees
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nolan Miller Incorporation
Represented By: Michael A Bernet
Represented By: Jeffrey A Kobulnick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?