LegalForce, Inc. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
| LegalForce, Inc. |
| LegalZoom.com, Inc. |
| 2:2018cv06147 |
| July 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Gail J Standish |
| Otis D Wright |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. § 44 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 26 The hearing on the MOTION TO TRANSFER #20 , scheduled for September 10, 2018 at 1:30 P.M., is hereby VACATED and taken off calendar. No appearances are necessary. The matter stands submitted, and will be decided upon without oral argument. An order will issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sce) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
| Filing 25 REPLY In Support of Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California, San Francisco Division #20 filed by Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. (Doolin, Michelle) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Objection/Opposition (Motion related),, #23 . The following error(s) was/were found: filer failed to follow system prompt wherein filer fills the blank area with "opposition"... resulting in the docket entry missing the title of the efiled document and docket entry begins erroneously as: "...to Motion to transfer..." In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) |
| Filing 23 to Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California (Dkt#20) 20 re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California, San Francisco Division #20 filed by Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Request for Judicial Notice, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Request for Judicial Notice, #3 Declaration of Raj V. Abhyanker, #4 Exhibit Exhibit A through E of Declaration of Raj V. Abhyanker, #5 Proposed Order)(Abhyanker, Raj) |
Filing 22
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT #18 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. LegalZoom shall file a response to the Complaint within fourteen (14) days after the Court issues its Order on LegalZoom.com, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue. (lom)
|
| Filing 21 Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint #18 filed by Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Raj Abhyanker, #2 Exhibit A-H)(Abhyanker, Raj) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California, San Francisco Division filed by Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 9/10/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge Otis D. Wright II. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue, #2 Declaration of Michelle C. Doolin in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue, #3 Exhibit 1-12 to Declaration of Michelle C. Doolin in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue, #4 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue) (Doolin, Michelle) |
| Filing 19 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc., identifying LegalZoom.com, Inc.. (Doolin, Michelle) |
| Filing 18 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint filed by Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Michelle C. Doolin, #2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Michelle C. Doolin, #3 Proposed Order) (Attorney Michelle C Doolin added to party LegalZoom.com, Inc.(pty:dft)) (Doolin, Michelle) |
| Filing 17 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc., upon Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. served on 7/19/2018, answer due 8/9/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Authorized Agent, LegalZoom.com, Inc. in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Abhyanker, Raj) |
| Filing 16 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (lc) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Summons Request #13 . The following error(s) was/were found: Filer inadvertently filled in issued date for 7/17/18, the date request was resubmitted. Please be advised NOT to enter date on the summons form prior to Clerks issuance of the summons. For this time ONLY and because filer corrected request per first deficiency notice, the summons will be issued for the date of issuance by separate entry. Therefore, No response to this notice is required. (lc) |
|
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION; PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. all proposed sealed documents must be submitted via e-mail to the Judges Chambers email address, EXCLUDING those submitted by pro se parties and IN CAMERA filings, which shall continue to comply with Local Rule 79-5.1. Please refer to the Judges procedures and schedules for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. (lc)
|
| Filing 13 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 LegalForce, Inc.. (Ma, Wensheng) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request #10 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. Caption is Missing the parties "TEXT" description which has to be verbatim to the caption of the complaint as well. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (lc) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report on Filing of Patent/Trademark Action (Initial Notification)(AO 120) #9 . The following error(s) was/were found: Case number is incorrect or missing. Other error(s) with document(s): Filer left case number block "blank" with "1". instead of case number.. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) |
| Filing 10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 LegalForce, Inc.. (Ma, Wensheng) |
| Filing 9 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by LegalForce, Inc.. (Ma, Wensheng) |
| Filing 8 Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.'s NOTICE of Interested Parties (Ma, Wensheng) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff LegalForce, Inc., identifying None. (Abhyanker, Raj) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL RE: Copyright, Patent and Trademark Reporting Requirements. Counsel shall file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 form with the Clerk within 10 days. (esa) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (esa) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. (esa) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Raj V. LegalForce, Inc.. (Abhyanker, Raj) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22094266 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Raj V. LegalForce, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A and B) (Attorney Raj V Abhyanker added to party Raj V. LegalForce, Inc.(pty:pla))(Abhyanker, Raj) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: LegalForce, Inc. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: LegalForce, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Wensheng Ma |
| Represented By: | Raj V Abhyanker |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: LegalZoom.com, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Michelle C Doolin |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
