Michael Aram, Inc. v. Ross Stores, Inc. et al
| Michael Aram, Inc. |
| Ross Stores, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10 |
| 2:2023cv00773 |
| February 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Pedro V Castillo |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Ross Stores, Inc. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge) (ghap) |
| Filing 5 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by Michael Aram, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Michael Aram, Inc., (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Michael Aram, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Michael Aram, Inc.. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34725292 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Michael Aram, Inc.. (Attorney Stephen M. Doniger added to party Michael Aram, 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.
