Skechers U.S.A. Inc. et al v. Laforst Shoes, Inc. et al
| Skechers U.S.A. Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II |
| Laforst Shoes, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive |
| 2:2023cv06783 |
| August 17, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Josephine L Staton |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton, as follows: Skechers shall have thirty (30) days to either (1) finalize its settlement with Defendant Laforst Shoes and file a stipulated judgment and injunction, or (2) to file for a default judgment if a settlement has not been finalized by then and the complaint still has not been responded to by Defendant Laforst Shoes. Failure to do so shall result in the immediate dismissal of this case without further notice. (jp)
|
| Filing 14 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Counsel and/or the parties are advised that the Court has updated its procedures in civil cases, including procedures encouraging consent to the magistrate judge in ordinary civil cases; setting forth presumptive schedules for class certification motion briefing; simplifying the requirements for substituting named defendants for Doe defendants; clarifying requirements for submission of mandatory chambers copies of voluminous exhibits; substituting compliance with the Local Rule regarding limitations on the number of words in the parties briefing for the Courts previous page limitations on briefing; imposing further limitations on the number of words in reply briefs; updating the Courts procedures in the case of settlement, including procedures for orders imposing stays of proceedings, orders of dismissal, and retention of jurisdiction by the Court; imposing limitations on both the number of and the content of motions in limine; and clarifying trial exhibit preparation, including the requirement to prepare a separate binder of exhibits for each witness. These updates are found on the Courts procedures page, and/or the Courts Initial Standing Order and Civil Trial Order, attached thereto. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cbr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Skechers U.S.A. Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. IIto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, #12 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Mattes, Bradford) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Josephine L. Staton: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show cause in writing no later than September 20, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiffs, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Answer to the Complaint; Request for Entry of Default; or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (F.R.Civ.P. 41). The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiffs is due. (lc)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, upon Defendant Laforst Shoes, Inc. served on 8/18/2023, answer due 9/8/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Patrick Chow, Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity and by also mailing a copy (Lerner, Marshall) |
| Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON. (gga) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Laforst Shoes, Inc. (ghap) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 REPORT ON THE FILING OF DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OF TRADEMARK COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid (402.00 paid on 08/17/2023,, filed by plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc..(Hurey, Michael) Modified on 8/18/2023 (ghap). |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED FILED AS COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid (402.00 paid on 08/17/2023,, filed by plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc..(Hurey, Michael) Modified on 8/18/2023 (ghap). |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS FILED AS COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid (402.00 paid on 08/17/2023,, filed by plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc..(Hurey, Michael) Modified on 8/18/2023 (ghap). |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEETS FILED AS COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid (402.00 paid on 08/17/2023,, filed by plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc..(Hurey, Michael) Modified on 8/18/2023 (ghap). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-35879612 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Skechers U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Complaint, #2 Exhibit 2 to Complaint, #3 Exhibit 3 to Complaint, #4 Exhibit 4 to Complaint, #5 Exhibit 5 to Complaint) (Attorney Michael Hurey added to party Skechers U.S.A. Inc.(pty:bkmov))(Hurey, Michael) |
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.
