Precision Fitness Equipment, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
Plaintiff: Precision Fitness Equipment, Inc.
Defendant: Nautilus, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2008cv01228
Filed: June 9, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Contract: Other Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Kristen L. Mix
Presiding Judge: Edward W. Nottingham
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 229 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 193 Defendants Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding the Parties Performance or Terms of Dealing Under the Commercial Dealer Agreement. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/2/2011.(erv, )
December 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 223 ORDER granting 185 Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Steve A. Mize. The expert report and testimony of Steve A. Mize are excluded, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/20/10.(mnf, )
December 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 222 MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 191 Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding Undisclosed Damages, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/17/10.(ebs, )
October 14, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 188 ORDER denying 177 Plaintiff Precision Fitness Equipment of Pompano Beach, Inc.s Motion to Bifurcate Counts Six and Seven of Defendant Nautilus, Inc.s Counterclaims/Third Party Claims by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/14/2010.(erv, )
September 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 179 ORDER re: 178 Third-Party Defendants Notice of Unavailability submitted by Jan Douglas Atlas, as attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Precision Fitness Equipment of Pompano Beach and Third-Party Defendants. Attorney Jan Atlas has never ent ered an appearance as counsel in this case. To the extent that this Court reads this notice as vaguely purporting to be a motion for continuance of the Final Trial Preparation Conference and Trial (FTPC) dates set by this Court on September 13, 2010, see docket 175 , that motion is DENIED. Both the FTPC date of November 19, 2010, and the trial date of November 30, 2010, were discussed with and cleared by counsel of record, Samantha Haimo and Matt Smith, and these dates will proceed as set. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/20/2010. (erv, )
June 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 161 MINUTE ORDER granting in part 159 Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants Motion to Amend Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/24/2010., Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 8/31/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix.; by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/18/2010.(erv, )
March 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 154 STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/9/2010. (klmcd)
February 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ORDER denying 109 Third-Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 115 Third-Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/11/2010.(erv, )
December 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 134 ORDER granting 130 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/4/09.(erv, )
November 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 126 ORDER denying 97 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Award Costs and Attorney Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiffs request for sanctions (inappropriately made in its Response 105 , instead of by separate motion as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1.C), is also DENIED. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/4/09.(erv, )
August 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER granting 69 Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer and Scheduling Order. The Court accepts Defendant's Amended Answer, Counterclaims, and Third-Party Claims [Docket no. 69-2] for filing as of the date of this Order. Denying as moot [8 8] Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Protective Order and/or Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's outstanding discovery requests within 30 days of this Order, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/25/09.(ebs, )
July 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying 57 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/20/09.(erv, )
February 10, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 65 Minute ORDER denying as Moot 62 Motion to Clarify by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 02/10/09.(jjh, )
January 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER granting 29 Defendant Nautilus's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/22/09.(gms, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Precision Fitness Equipment, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Precision Fitness Equipment, Inc.
Represented By: Samantha Tesser Haimo
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: Nautilus, Inc.
Represented By: Gregory Andrew Anderson
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?