McCabe v. Floyd Rose Guitars et al
| Geoffrey L. McCabe |
| Floyd Rose Guitars, Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., Floyd D. Rose, Davitt & Hanser Music Co., Ping Well Industrial Co. Ltd and DOES |
| 3:2010cv00581 |
| March 19, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Jan M. Adler |
| Thomas J. Whelan |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
124
ORDER (1) granting Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and (2) denying 98 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Lerner David is DENIED, and Defe ndants' motion to dismiss the sixth through eighth claims of the SAC is GRANTED. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If McCabe wishes, he may file an amended complaint within 14 days after this Order is electronically docketed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/23/12. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER on 89 104 Motions to Seal: Plaintiff's 89 motion to file the SAC under seal is DENIED. Within fourteen days from the date this Order is electronically docketed, the parties are directed to file the redacted license agreements. If, h owever, the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to appropriate redactions, the parties are directed to file with the Court supplemental briefing not to exceed 5 pages commenting on the reasons for the inability to file redacted versions of the licensing agreements. At that time, the Court will reset this matter for a hearing. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/17/12. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER denying 77 Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/5/11. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part 37 Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Re-Examination and (2) denying 59 Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Stay as to the five patent infringement claims. This action is stayed as to claims 1-5 of Plaintiff's first amended complaint. The Court denies Defendant's Motion to Stay as to claims 6-8. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/12/11. (lmt) Modified text on 4/13/2011 (jcj).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
