Atosa USA, Inc. v. MVP Group Corp. et al
| Atosa USA, Inc. |
| MVP Group Corp. and MVP Group LLC |
| 8:2021cv01474 |
| September 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER Granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) #16 , by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Defendants MVP Group LLC answer due 12/7/2021. (twdb)
|
| Filing 16 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to December 7, 2021 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant MVP Group LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Corey A. Donaldson, #2 Proposed Order)(Donaldson, Corey) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER RE Service and Response of MVP Group Corp., by Judge Cormac J. Carney, Granting, Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) #14 . MVPGC is deemed served with the Complaint effective as of October 26, 2021 2. MVPGC shall have until January 24, 2022 to respond to the Complaint in this action. (twdb)
|
| Filing 14 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Atosa USA, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Robinson, William) |
| Filing 13 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant MVP Group Corp. (iv) |
| Filing 12 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Atosa USA, Inc.. (Robinson, William) |
| Filing 11 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to MVP Group LLC answer now due 11/7/2021, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant MVP Group LLC.(Attorney Corey Alexander Donaldson added to party MVP Group LLC(pty:dft))(Donaldson, Corey) |
| Filing 10 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jianing G Yu counsel for Plaintiff Atosa USA, Inc.. Adding Jianing Galen Yu as counsel of record for Atosa USA, Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Atosa USA, Inc.. (Yu, Jianing) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant MVP Group LLC. (et) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (et) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Report on Filing of Patent/Trademark Action (Initial Notification)(AO 120) #4 filed by Plaintiff ATOSA USA, INC.. (Robinson, William) |
| Filing 4 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by ATOSA USA, INC.. (Robinson, William) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff ATOSA USA, INC., identifying Yindu Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd.. (Robinson, William) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff ATOSA USA, INC.. (Robinson, William) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31952123 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff ATOSA USA, INC.. (Attorney William J Robinson added to party ATOSA USA, INC.(pty:pla))(Robinson, William) |
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.
