SOTO Sake Corporation v. Dojo Beverage Co. et al
Plaintiff: SOTO Sake Corporation
Defendant: Dojo Beverage Co. and Michael Brown
Case Number: 2:2022cv08820
Filed: December 5, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Alicia G Rosenberg
Referring Judge: Otis D Wright
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 30, 2023 Filing 15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation. upon Michael Brown waiver sent by Plaintiff on 1/27/2023, answer due 3/28/2023. Waiver of Service signed by Scott E. Rogers. (Durham, Gina)
January 30, 2023 Filing 14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation. upon Dojo Beverage Co. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 1/27/2023, answer due 3/28/2023. Waiver of Service signed by Scott E. Rogers. (Durham, Gina)
December 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY- No mandatory chambers copies required, EXCEPT FOR MSJs. 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)
December 6, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) #5 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) #6 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Incorrect event was selected. The correct event is located under Civil Events Service Documents Service/Waivers of Summons and Complaints. Clerk Issued the Summons. (et)
December 6, 2022 Filing 11 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Michael Brown. (et)
December 6, 2022 Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Dojo Beverage Co. (et)
December 6, 2022 Filing 9 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et)
December 6, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et)
December 6, 2022 Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (et)
December 5, 2022 Filing 6 [REQUEST FOR CLERK TO ISSUED SUMMONS] Filed as PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation, upon Defendant Michael Brown served on 12/5/2022, answer due 12/27/2022. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael Brown, employee in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed.Original Summons NOT returned. (Orozco-Botello, Oscar) Modified on 12/6/2022 (et).
December 5, 2022 Filing 5 [REQUEST FOR CLERK TO ISSUED SUMMONS] Filed as PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation, upon Defendant Dojo Beverage Co. served on 12/5/2022, answer due 12/27/2022. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Dojo Beverage Co. in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Orozco-Botello, Oscar) Modified on 12/6/2022 (et).
December 5, 2022 Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation (Orozco-Botello, Oscar)
December 5, 2022 Filing 3 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by SOTO Sake Corporation. (Orozco-Botello, Oscar)
December 5, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation. (Orozco-Botello, Oscar)
December 5, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34426528 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff SOTO Sake Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1) (Attorney Oscar M Orozco-Botello added to party SOTO Sake Corporation(pty:pla))(Orozco-Botello, Oscar)

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 this case: SOTO Sake Corporation v. Dojo Beverage Co. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: SOTO Sake Corporation
Represented By: Oscar M Orozco-Botello
Represented By: Gina Louise Durham
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: Dojo Beverage Co.
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: Michael Brown
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.


Why Is My Information Online?