PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Ambicom Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff: PC Drivers Headquarters, LP
Defendant: Ambicom Holdings, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2016mc80125
Filed: June 13, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
Presiding Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Nature of Suit: Other

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 69 Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 54 and 61 motion to stay; order granting-in-part and denying-in-part 65 motion for leave to file status report. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017)
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: PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Ambicom Holdings, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: PC Drivers Headquarters, LP
Represented By: David J. Cook
Represented By: Scott F. Courtney
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: Ambicom Holdings, Inc.
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?