Richmond Technologies, Inc v. Aumtech Business Solutions et al
| Richmond Technologies, Inc |
| Damien Joseph Polito, Jennifer Polito, Shanker Bose, Ila Bose, Aumtech Business Solutions and Aumtech I-Solutions PVT Ltd |
| 5:2011cv02460 |
| May 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Paul Singh Grewal |
| Lucy H. Koh |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
63
ORDER GRANTING 19 Ex Parte MOTION for Substitute Service; DENYING 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Improper Venue and 37 MOTION to Dismiss the Summons and Complaint Due to Defective Summons, Defective Service, and for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 33 RENEWED EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 8/1/2011 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Koh on 7/1/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Signed by Judge Koh on 6/6/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)
|
|
Filing
17
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 5 Motion for TRO without prejudice.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)
|
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.
