3M Company et al v. Phoenix Automotive Refinishing Co., Ltd. et al
||3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company
||K2 Concepts and Phoenix Automotive Refinishing Co., Ltd.
||April 5, 2017
||US District Court for the Central District of California
||David T. Bristow
||Ronald S.W. Lew
|Nature of Suit:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|April 25, 2018
JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of 3M and against Phoenix, in accordance with this Court's previous Order granting 3M's Motion for Default Judgment. Nominal damages are awarded to 3M in the amount of $1.00. Attorney's fees are further awarded to 3M in the amount of $65,637.00. The Court also awards costs to 3M in the amount of $10,515.39. Furthermore, the Court GRANTS 3Ms request forentry of a permanent injunction, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Phoenix and it's agents, servants, and employees, and all persons in active concert and participation with Phoenix who receive actual notice of the injunction are permanently enjoined (See Judgment for further details0. As no Defendants remain, the case is dismissed and the Clerk shall close this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (yl)
|February 12, 2018
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew (MDFJ). Response due 2/20/2018. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|July 12, 2017
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. This Order is issued pursuant to FRCP 4(m), which requires that plaintiff(s) serve the summons and complaint (petition) upon al l defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The Court may dismiss the action if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writingno later than July 19, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), th e Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely servic e of defendant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this action. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this action. (jre)
|April 27, 2017
CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew in favor of 3M Company against K2 Concepts only. Related to: Joint REQUEST to Approve Consent Judgment as to Defendant K2 Concepts 17 . SEE JUDGMENT FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
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
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?