RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC v. City of Sacramento
| RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC |
| City of Sacramento |
| 2:2022cv01363 |
| July 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Carolyn K Delaney |
| Kimberly J Mueller |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MOTION to DISMISS by City of Sacramento. Attorney Nassihi, Amir M. added. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities)(Nassihi, Amir) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/30/2022: In light of the parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time, ECF No. #7 , Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, ECF No. #6 , is DENIED as MOOT. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) |
| Filing 7 STIPULATION for extension of time to respond to Complaint by RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC. Attorney Nassihi, Amir M. added. (Nassihi, Amir) Modified on 8/29/2022 (Kaminski, H). |
| Filing 6 MOTION for EXTENSION of TIME to FILE ANSWER by RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Washko, Frank) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: City of Sacramento served on 8/5/2022, answer due 8/26/2022. (Washko, Frank) |
| Filing 4 PATENT NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED as to Patent #1:* US 7,839,302 B2 * * 11/23/2010 * * John T. Staniszewski, * ; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 12/1/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order, #2 Consent Form, #3 Patent Report, #4 VDRP) (Rodriguez, E) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Sacramento* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Frank M. Washko* *Tiburon Intellectual Property PLLC* *350 Townsend St. Suite 680* *San Francisco, CA 94107*. (Rodriguez, E) |
| Filing 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Plaintiff RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC. (Washko, Frank) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Sacramento by RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC. Attorney Washko, Frank M. added. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-10355712) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Patent, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Patent Report)(Washko, Frank) |
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 Eastern 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
| Search for this case: RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC v. City of Sacramento | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: RanaVerde Tech Initiative, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Frank M. Washko |
| Represented By: | Amir M. Nassihi |
| 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: City of Sacramento | |
| Represented By: | Amir M. Nassihi |
| 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.
