Choyce v. SF Bay Area Independent Media Center et al
| Dionne Choyce |
| Layer42.net, Inc., SF Bay Area Independent Media Center and Cernio Technology Cooperative |
| 3:2013cv01842 |
| April 23, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Alameda |
| Jon S. Tigar |
| Copyright |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
72
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part, 59 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part, 61 Motion for Attorney Fees. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2014)
|
|
Filing
63
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 62 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees FOLLOWING DISMISSAL OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM, 59 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees filed by Dionne Choyce. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 16, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2014).
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS, DENYING ANTI-SLAPP MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING re 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Layer42.net, Inc., 31 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motions and Motions of Defendant SF Bay Area Independent Media Center to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and MOTION to Strike 26 Amended Complaint Plaintiff's State Law Causes of Action Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Same filed by SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 3, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2014)
|
|
Filing
39
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Case Management Statement due by 3/12/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/26/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 23, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2014)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING re 25 MOTION for Attorney Fees FOLLOWING ORDER ON SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE filed by Layer42.net, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 14, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SPECIALLY STRIKE by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 12 Motion to Strike. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW COURT'S PRETRIAL ORDER; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM. Case Management Statement due by 8/14/2013. Proof of Service due by 8/23/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 29, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)
|
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 Northern 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.
