VIZIO, Inc. v. Tymphany HK LTD. et al
Plaintiff: VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation and VIZIO, Inc.
Defendant: Tymphany HK LTD. and Does 1-20, inclusive
Case Number: 8:2019cv01326
Filed: July 3, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Karen E Scott
Referring Judge: Josephine L Staton
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT #16 by Judge Josephine L. Staton that Defendant Tymphany HK Ltd.s time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended 60 days from 7/29/2019 to 9/27/2019. (jp)
July 31, 2019 Filing 16 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to September 27, 2019 filed by Defendant Tymphany HK LTD.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint)(Attorney Deborah Y Jones added to party Tymphany HK LTD.(pty:dft))(Jones, Deborah)
July 19, 2019 Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, Inc., served on 07/18/2019. (Waxman, Robert)
July 17, 2019 Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff VIZIO, Inc., upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Juliet LaMariana, US Operations Manager in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified.Original Summons NOT returned. [Amended Proof of Service Includes Caption Page] (Waxman, Robert)
July 17, 2019 Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff VIZIO, Inc., upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Joe Chiang, Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified.Original Summons NOT returned. (Waxman, Robert)
July 17, 2019 Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff VIZIO, Inc., upon Defendant Tymphany HK LTD. served on 7/8/2019, answer due 7/29/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Juliet LaMariana, US Operations Manager in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified.Original Summons NOT returned. (Waxman, Robert)
July 9, 2019 Filing 11 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (tg)
July 5, 2019 Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Tymphany HK LTD. (car)
July 5, 2019 Filing 9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, Inc.. (Waxman, Robert)
July 5, 2019 Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: The name and address of the attorney for plaintiff(s)must be entered in the appropriate field. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (car)
July 5, 2019 Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car)
July 5, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (car)
July 3, 2019 Filing 5 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation. (Waxman, Robert)
July 3, 2019 Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation. (Waxman, Robert)
July 3, 2019 Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation (Waxman, Robert)
July 3, 2019 Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation, identifying Tymphany HK LTD., a corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong. (Waxman, Robert)
July 3, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24033737 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation. (Attorney Robert M Waxman added to party VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation(pty:pla))(Waxman, Robert)

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: VIZIO, Inc. v. Tymphany HK LTD. 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: VIZIO, INC., a California Corporation
Represented By: Robert M Waxman
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 ]
Plaintiff: VIZIO, Inc.
Represented By: Robert M Waxman
Represented By: Jason L Haas
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: Tymphany HK LTD.
Represented By: Lisa L Garcia
Represented By: Deborah Y Jones
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: Does 1-20, inclusive
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?