RE MAX, LLC v. Donald Abrams
| RE/MAX, LLC and RE MAX, LLC |
| Donald Abrams, Abrams Coastal Properties and Donald Abrams doing business as Abrams Coastal Properties |
| 8:2023cv01714 |
| September 14, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Karen E Scott |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: Granting #10 Non-Resident Attorney John R. Posthumus APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff RE MAX, LLC, designating Adam P. Daniels as local counsel. (et)
|
| Filing 11 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by RE MAX, LLC. (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 10 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney John R. Posthumus to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff RE MAX, LLC (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Previously Paid on 9/21/2023, Receipt No. 36086261) filed by plaintiff RE MAX, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO COUNSEL RE: Copyright, Patent and Trademark Reporting Requirements. Counsel shall file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 form with the Clerk within 10 days. (ghap) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney John R Posthumus on behalf on Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Donald Abrams. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge) (ghap) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , Corporate Disclosure Statement #3 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #4 filed by plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC. (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC, identifying RMCO, LLC, Donald Abrams, and Abrams Coastal Properties. (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC identifying RMCO, LLC as Corporate Parent. (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC. (Daniels, Adam) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36043610 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Attorney Adam Peter Daniels added to party RE/MAX, LLC(pty:pla))(Daniels, Adam) |
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.
