Eldorado Stone LLC, et al v. Renaissance Stone, et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Southern District Eldorado Stone LLC, et al v. Renaissance Stone, et al

Eldorado Stone LLC, et al v. Renaissance Stone, et al

Case Number:	3:2004cv02562
Filed:	December 23, 2004
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	Trademark Office
Presiding Judge:	Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Presiding Judge:	Jeffrey T Miller
Nature of Suit:	Both
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	15:1114 Trademark Infringement

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 5, 2009	Filing 482 ORDER denying Motion for Attorney's Fees 473 and 477 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 5/5/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl) (jrl).
February 5, 2009	Filing 469 ORDER signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 2/5/09. The court concludes that Eldorado fails to establish that an amendment to the judgment is warranted under the circumstances. Amendment of the judgment is not appropriate under California Code of Civi l Procedure §187 as Proposed Judgment Creditors did not exercise sufficient control over the litigation such that the imposition of liability comports with notions of due process. Amendment of the judgment is also not appropriate because Eldorado fails to establish that the Proposed Judgment Creditors are the alter egos of RSI. The motion to amend the judgment is denied 438 . The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 5, 2009

Filing 482 ORDER denying Motion for Attorney's Fees 473 and 477 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 5/5/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl) (jrl).

February 5, 2009

Filing 469 ORDER signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 2/5/09. The court concludes that Eldorado fails to establish that an amendment to the judgment is warranted under the circumstances. Amendment of the judgment is not appropriate under California Code of Civi l Procedure §187 as Proposed Judgment Creditors did not exercise sufficient control over the litigation such that the imposition of liability comports with notions of due process. Amendment of the judgment is also not appropriate because Eldorado fails to establish that the Proposed Judgment Creditors are the alter egos of RSI. The motion to amend the judgment is denied 438 . The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl)

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

Search for this case: Eldorado Stone LLC, et al v. Renaissance Stone, et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?