Pearson v. Pearson
Plaintiff: Ryan Pearson
Defendant: Steve Pearson
Case Number: 5:2011cv05037
Filed: October 12, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
County: Sonoma
Presiding Judge: Lucy H. Koh
Presiding Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 19 Stipulation (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)
April 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 17 Stipulation (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2012)
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: Pearson v. Pearson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ryan Pearson
Represented By: Elizabeth Rae Palmer
Represented By: William J. Arnone, Jr.
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: Steve Pearson
Represented By: Daniel Ralph Richardson
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.


Why Is My Information Online?