AF Holdings LLC v. Doe et al
| AF Holdings LLC |
| John Doe and Josh Hatfield |
| 3:2012cv02049 |
| April 24, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Alameda |
| Elizabeth D. Laporte |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| 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
56
JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 02/07/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 27 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; denying 31 Motion to Strike (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2013)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; denying 18 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief; and vacating hearing. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2012)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/2/2012. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/13/2012. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/20/2012 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/19/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER, Case reassigned to Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 6/5/12. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2012)
|
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.
