Carlos Vila v. Deadly Doll, Inc.
| Carlos Vila |
| Deadly Doll, Inc. |
| 2:2021cv05837 |
| July 20, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R Wilner |
| Otis D Wright |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 501 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER that the Scheduling Conference is set for November 15, 2021 1:30 PM ; compliance with FRCP 16, and 26(f) and filing of joint report; Counsel for plaintiff shall immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action by Judge Otis D Wright, II. (lc)
|
|
Filing 16
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #14 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 7-19.1 Notice to other parties of ex parte application lacking. 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 15
COUNTERCLAIM against Counterclaim Defendant Carlos Vila; Jury Demand, filed by Defendant Deadly Doll, Inc..(Lee, Mark)
|
|
Filing 14
ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant Deadly Doll, Inc..(Lee, Mark)
|
|
Filing 13
STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Deadly Doll, Inc. answer now due 9/10/2021, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Deadly Doll, Inc..(Attorney Mark Steven Lee added to party Deadly Doll, Inc.(pty:dft))(Lee, Mark)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing no later than August 16, 2021, 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 OSC, on or before the above date: Plaintiff's request for entry of default as to the defendant(s); Answer by the defendant(s) In the event both documents are filed before the above date, the answer will take precedence. Failure to respond to the Court's Order shall result in the dismissal of the action. (lc)
|
|
Filing 11
PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Vila, upon Defendant Deadly Doll, Inc. served on 7/22/2021, answer due 8/12/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Lynn Charles- Receptionist in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Sanders, Craig)
|
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. The Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) allows people without lawyers who have pending cases in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to submit documents electronically to the Clerk's Office 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. Please refer to Court's Website and Judge's procedures for information as applicable. (lc)
|
|
Filing 9
21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant Deadly Doll, Inc. (esa)
|
|
Filing 8
Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (esa)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (esa)
|
|
Filing 5
CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Carlos Vila, identifying Barshay Sanders, PLLC, Craig B. Sanders, Deadly Doll, Inc.. (Sanders, Craig)
|
|
Filing 4
REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by Carlos Vila. (Sanders, Craig)
|
|
Filing 3
Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Vila. (Sanders, Craig)
|
|
Filing 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Carlos Vila. (Sanders, Craig)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31657098 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Carlos Vila. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit) (Attorney Craig B Sanders added to party Carlos Vila(pty:pla))(Sanders, Craig)
|
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: Carlos Vila v. Deadly Doll, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Counter defendant: Carlos Vila | |
| Represented By: | Craig B Sanders |
| 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 ] |
| Counter claimant: Deadly Doll, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Mark Steven Lee |
| 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.
