Bauer Bros, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Plaintiff: Bauer Bros, LLC
Defendant: Nike, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2009cv00500
Filed: March 12, 2009
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: Jan M. Adler
Presiding Judge: Thomas J. Whelan
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
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
June 1, 2016 266 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 264 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/31/2016. (nbp)
February 3, 2016 257 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The renewed motion for summary judgment (Dkt # 245 ) is denied. The motion for summary judgment on Nike's counterclaims (Dkt # 246 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to voluntarily amend trademark registrations (Dkt # 247 ) is denied. The Proposed1 Final Pretrial Conference Order is due by 4/18/2016. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for 5/6/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14B. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/3/2016. (mdc)
November 26, 2012 208 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: On 5/24/2012, the Court granted Nike's Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability. The Court denied Bauer's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaims. The Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Counterclaims filed by Defendant Nike, Inc. is GRANTED. (Doc. 202 ). The counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to order cancellation of the subject trademarks. The Court will not reinstate the Clerk of the Court's 6/26/2012 Order Taxing Costs. The Court will not reinstate the Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nike. The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final judgment in this case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/26/2012. (mdc)
September 11, 2012 200 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The Judgment in this case (Doc. 181 ) and Order Taxing Costs (Doc. 192 ) are VACATED. The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nike (Doc. 184 ) and Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 185 ) are DENIED as premature. The Sealed Lodged Pro posed Documents (Doc. 186 ) shall not appear on the public record. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to re-open this case. A pretrial conference is set for 9/28/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 04. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/10/2012. (mdc)
May 24, 2012 180 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting defendant Nike, Inc.'s 109 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot plaintiff's 113 Motion for Summary Judgment on Nike's Affirmative Defenses; denying as moot plaintiff's 107 Motion to Amend Trademark Registrations; denying plaintiff's 112 Motion for Summary Judgment on Nike's Counterclaims; Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/24/12. (kaj)
May 3, 2012 174 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge Discovery Ruling (Doc. 166 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/3/2012. (mdc)
September 23, 2011 122 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re 119 Application for Leave to Submit Physical Garments and Voluminous Documents on a CD. It is hereby Ordered that the Motions to File Documents Under Seal (ECF Nos. 110 , 117 ) remain pending before the Court. Any party seeking to have a ny specific document filed under seal may file supplemental materials in support of that request no later than Ten (10) Days from the date this Order is filed. It is Further Ordered that the Application for Leave to Submit Physical Garments and Voluminous Documents on a CD is Granted in part and Denied in part (ECF No. 119 ). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/22/11. (lao)
March 8, 2011 81 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The (Doc. 59 ) Motion to Dismiss and Strike Amended Counterclaims is granted in part and denied in part, as discussed. The (Doc. 60 ) Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding Counterclaims for Fraud is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/8/2011. (mdc)
November 5, 2010 53 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The (Doc. 42 ) Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses and Dismiss Counterclaims is denied as moot; and the (Doc. 44 ) Motion to Amend and Request for the Court to Deny as Moot and Take Off Calendar Bauer Bros.' Pending Motion to Strike and to Dismiss is granted. No later than 7 days from the date this Order is filed, Nike shall file the proposed first amended answer attached to the Motion to Amend as Exhibit A. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/5/2010. (mdc)
June 4, 2010 32 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying (Doc. 22 ) Motion for Settlement Without Prejudice. The parties are hereby Ordered to jointly call Magistrate Judge Skomal's chambers withing three court days of the date of this order to discuss the status of the case and the scheduling of future dates. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 6/4/2010. (cap)

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: Bauer Bros, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bauer Bros, LLC
Represented By: Alexander E Papaefthimiou
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: Nike, 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 [ 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?