Hansen Beverage Company v. Innovation Ventures, LLC

Plaintiff: Hansen Beverage Company
Defendant: Innovation Ventures, LLC
Case Number: 3:2008cv01166
Filed: July 1, 2008
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Trademark Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Referring Judge: Louisa S Porter
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
August 16, 2010 234 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER regarding 232 Joint Discovery Statement re: August 10, 2010 Discovery Conference. Defendant's requests are Granted in part and Denied in part. No later than 08/23/10, Hansen is ordered to both inquire if unredacted copies exist and if s o, provide them to the Court for review. If Plaintiff has previously produced all consumer complaints, it must so state in a sworn declaration. Plaintiff must provide a response or declaration on or before 08/23/10. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 8/16/10.(lao)
April 20, 2010 231 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Regarding Hansen Beverage Company's 218 Objection to Magistrate Judge Gallo's Order Denying Request to Depose Dr. Gail Mahady. Court declines to modify or set aside Magistrate Judge Gallo's denial of Hansen's request to depose Dr. Mahady. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/20/2010.(jah)
March 22, 2010 219 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Confirming Denial of Hansen's Request re 212 Supplemental Briefing, 194 Notice (Other), 200 Reply. Hansen's request to depose Dr. Gail Mahady is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 3/22/2010.(jah) (jrl).
February 25, 2010 203 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Plaintiff's 173 Motion for Certification for Inrerlocutory Appeal. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/25/2010. (jah) (jrl).
January 19, 2010 181 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Plaintiff's 174 Ex Parte Motion for a Limited Stay. Court will take Plaintff's motion for certification under submission pursuant to Civil Local rule 7.1.(d)(1). No oral argument will be required. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/19/2010. (jah) (jrl).
August 11, 2009 98 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Approving Agreements Made at Discovery Conferences Dated 5/26/2009 and 7/1/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 8/5/2009. (jah) (jrl).
July 1, 2009 86 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting w/o prejudice Third-Party Carryon Communications' 67 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. Dft may subpoena Carryon Communications once it has completed further discovery from Pla and/or narrowed the scope of its requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter on 7/1/2009. (jah)(jrl).

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: Hansen Beverage Company v. Innovation Ventures, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Hansen Beverage Company
Represented By: Norman Leslie Smith
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Innovation Ventures, LLC
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 [ 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?