Purzel Video GmbH v. Does 64, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114
| Purzel Video GmbH |
| Does 64, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114 |
| 1:2013cv01167 |
| May 2, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Wiley Y. Daniel |
| Michael E. Hegarty |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright 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
74
ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge HegartyECF No. 72 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion and Memorandum for Default Judgment against Defendant Benito Smoak ECF No. 69 is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART; Judgment shall enter in Plaintiffs favor against Defendant Benito Smoak for direct copyright infringement of Plaintiffs copyrighted work and contributory infringement, as set forth in Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint; Defendant Smoak shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $2,250.00 in statutory damages, as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $1,047.50 for attorneys fees and costs as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 505; Defendant Smoak shall permanently destroy all the digital media files relating to, and copies of, Plaintiffs copyrighted work made or used by him in violation of Plaintiffs exclusive rights, as well as all master copies in his possession, cust ody or control from which such copies may be reproduced; and Plaintiffs request for entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions providing that [Smoak] shall be enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs rights in the copyrighted Motion Picture is DENIED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/1/2014.(evana, )
|
|
Filing
63
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Plaintiffs Combined Motion to Compel Discovery against Benito Smoak, to Modify the Discovery Schedule, and for Attorneys Fees, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/5/2014.(evana, )
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER re: 58 Stipulation filed by Purzel Video GmbH, Geoff Inge is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this action, with each party to pay its own attorney fees and costs, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/28/2014. (evana, )
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty(ECF No. 55) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 01/06/14.(jjhsl, )
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty 54 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendant Inge's Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant Inges Affirmative Defenses 40 is GRANTED. Defendant's affirmative defenses at 19, 20, 22, 23, 21(2nd), 22(2nd), and 26 are STRICKEN by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 12/19/13.(jjhsl, )
|
|
Filing
49
MINUTE ORDER granting 45 Motion for Withdrawal of 37 Clerk's Entry of Default as to Benito Smoak and Don Tyslan. The Clerk of the Court shallwithdraw its entry of default as to Benito Smoak and Don Tyslan found at docket 37 . By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/12/2013. (mehcd)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER. ORDERED that defendant, Doe No. 103, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action. ORDERED that plaintiff, Purzel Video GmbH, shall amend the case caption on future filings to reflect the dismissal of Doe No. 103 by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 07/17/13. (jjhsl, )
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/7/2013. (mehcd)
|
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
| Search for this case: Purzel Video GmbH v. Does 64, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Purzel Video GmbH | |
| Represented By: | Paul Alan Lesko |
| 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: Does 64, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114 | |
| 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.
