Design Collection, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. et al
| Design Collection, Inc. |
| H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., DOES 1 through 10 and DOES 110 |
| 2:2021cv07901 |
| October 4, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., (Riordan, Staci) |
Filing 14
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are ordered to appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for 1/10/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (jgr)
|
| Filing 13 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P..(Attorney Staci Jennifer Riordan added to party H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P.(pty:dft))(Riordan, Staci) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/18/2021. (rfi)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc., upon Defendant H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. served on 10/7/2021, answer due 10/28/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Corporation Service Company c/o Lynanne Gares\Registered Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. (jtil) |
|
Filing 9
STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (jgr)
|
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 4 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by Design Collection, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc., identifying H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L.P.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32092396 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc.. (Attorney Stephen M. Doniger added to party Design Collection, Inc.(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.
