August Image, LLC v. Second Street Optique et al
| August Image, LLC |
| Second Street Optique and DOES 1-10 |
| 2:2024cv00236 |
| January 10, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Steve Kim |
| Josephine L Staton |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Interested Parties (Berstein, David) |
| Filing 15 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Marc Schain doing business as Second Street Optique Second Street Optique.(Attorney David A Berstein added to party Second Street Optique(pty:dft))(Berstein, David) |
Filing 14
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show causes in writing no later than March 7, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
|
Filing 13
NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Josephine L. Staton, ORDERING Letter to Judge submitted by Defendant Second Street Optique received on 2/12/24 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 83-2.5 No letters to the judge. (rolm)
|
|
Filing 12
SELF-REPRESENTATION ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton. One or more of the parties to this action has elected to appear pro se (i.e., without a lawyer). Persons appearing before the Court are not required to retain the services of a lawyer or obtain the advice of counsel. Individual litigants may represent themselves pro se, but corporations and associations must be represented by counsel. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff August Image, LLC, upon Defendant Second Street Optique served on 1/17/2024, answer due 2/7/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Second Street Optique c/o Mark Schaen (Owner/Manager/Authorized to Accept) in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON. See document for further information. (jp) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Second Street Optique. (car) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (car) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff August Image, LLC. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 4 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification) filed by August Image, LLC. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff August Image, LLC, (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff August Image, LLC. (Doniger, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36704352 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff August Image, LLC. (Attorney Stephen M. Doniger added to party August Image, LLC(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.
