Andrew Prokos v. Armada Communications, Inc. et al
| ANDREW PROKOS and Andrew Prokos an individual doing business as Andrew Prokos Photography |
| DOES 1 through 10 and ARMADA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. |
| 2:2019cv08473 |
| October 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Otis D Wright |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Armada Communications, Inc., (Schewe, Edward) |
| Filing 13 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Armada Communications, Inc. (Schewe, Edward) |
| Filing 12 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant Armada Communications, Inc..(Schewe, Edward) |
| Filing 11 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Armada Communications, Inc. answer now due 11/27/2019, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Armada Communications, Inc..(Attorney Edward C Schewe added to party Armada Communications, Inc.(pty:dft))(Schewe, Edward) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Andrew Prokos, upon Defendant Armada Communications, Inc. served on 10/7/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Robert Faulkner - Authorized Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Doniger, Stephen) |
Filing 9
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. The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. 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 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Armada Communications, Inc. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff ANDREW PROKOS. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 4 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by ANDREW PROKOS. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff ANDREW PROKOS, (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff ANDREW PROKOS. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24535052 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff ANDREW PROKOS. (Attorney Stephen M Doniger added to party ANDREW PROKOS(pty:pla))(Doniger, Stephen) |
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
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.
