Metataste General Trading LLC v. ATIV Solutions LLC
| Metataste General Trading LLC |
| ATIV Solutions LLC |
| 2:2019cv08322 |
| September 25, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alexander F MacKinnon |
| S James Otero |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero:Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in writing by not later than December 25, 2019 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The court will consider the filing of the following as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause, on or before the above date: Proof of service of summons and complaint. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the court's Order may result in the dismissal of the action. (lc)
|
|
Filing 10
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge S. James Otero. (vcr)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE TO THE PATENT PILOT PROGRAM by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Case transferred from Judge Dolly M. Gee to Judge S. James Otero for all further proceedings. Case number now reads 2:19-cv-08322 SJO (AFMx). (esa)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant ATIV Solutions LLC. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by Metataste General Trading LLC. (Anderson, Kirk) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Movant Metataste General Trading LLC (Anderson, Kirk) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Movant Metataste General Trading LLC. (Anderson, Kirk) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Metataste General Trading LLC. (Anderson, Kirk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24504441 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Metataste General Trading LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Patent, #2 Exhibit Defendant's Website, #3 Exhibit Defendant's Product for Sale) (Attorney Kirk J Anderson added to party Metataste General Trading LLC(pty:bkmov))(Anderson, Kirk) |
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: Metataste General Trading LLC v. ATIV Solutions LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: ATIV Solutions LLC | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Metataste General Trading LLC | |
| Represented By: | Kirk J Anderson |
| 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.
