Winmark Corporation v. Schneeberger et al
| Winmark Corporation |
| Todd A. Schneeberger and Patricia A. Schneeberger |
| 1:2013cv00274 |
| February 1, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| William J. Martinez |
| Contract: Franchise |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| None |
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
54
ORDER In view of the order Doc. # 52 of the district judge administratively closing the action, IT IS ORDERED that the requirement contained in my order Doc. # 53 that the plaintiff file a status report is vacated, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/3/2014. (evana, )
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER STRIKING 47 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Todd A. Schneeberger, Patricia A. Schneeberger. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time to file an Answer to the Complaint or other Responsive Pleading. Such pleading must be filed on or before December 13, 2013, by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/5/2013. (ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER granting 38 Defendants Motion to Set Aside Clerks Entry of Default and the Clerk's Entry of Default as to Defendants ECF No. 34 is VACATED; and Defendants shall file an Answer or Responsive Pleading on or before December 5, 2013, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/14/2013.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER Defendants Motion ECF No. 36 is DENIED as moot; Defendants Motions ECF Nos. 38 and 41 are CONSOLIDATED as one motion and construed together as a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default, to be carried forward in the docket of this Court a s ECF No. 38 ; Given the consolidation of these motions, the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE ECF No. 41 ; Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment ECF No. 37 is DENIED without prejudice; Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a Response to Defendants Consolidated Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment by no later than November 8,2013. No reply will be permitted, by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/31/2013.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER granting 8 Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Defendants are ORDERED to immediately cease and desist from using Plaintiffs Marks both inside and outside Defendants Store, consistent with the terms of this Order; If Defendants Sto re has not closed on or before April 15, 2013, the parties are DIRECTED to provide the Court with a Status Report regarding the status of Defendants Store at that time. This Status Report is to be filed no later than April 17, 2013 (and may include p hotographs from Defendants' store and receipts from same); and The Court GRANTS leave to Plaintiff to refile, if necessary and appropriate, any renewed motion for preliminary injunction on any argument (or evidence) that has not been addressed in this Order on or after April 16, 2013, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/19/2013.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The parties are directed to confer in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (f) on or before 03/21/13; The parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before 04/04/13; Proposed Scheduling Order is due on or before 04/04/13; Scheduling Conference set for 4/11/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 02/12/13. (alvsl)
|
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 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.
