In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation

Case Number: 5:2006cv01303
Filed: February 22, 2006
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Jose Office
Referring Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Presiding Judge: James Ware
Nature of Suit: Fraud or Truth-In-Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 31, 2009 144 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING RE: FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re 142 MOTION for Attorney Fees, 138 MOTION for Order Granting Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement. The Court orders that on or before 9/3/2009, the pa rties shall file an Amended Final Approval Order and Judgment whereby the parties shall nominate specific Cypres recipients. Please see Order for further specifics. Signed by Judge James Ware on 8/31/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2009)
October 2, 2008 128 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT re 127 Stipulation filed by Stanley Batsalkin. Discovery cut off set for 12/1/2008. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. This is the parties' last and final continuance. The Case Management Conference set for 10/6/2008 is VACATED. Signed by Judge James Ware on 10/2/2008. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2008)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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.

Why Is My Information Online?