IMAPIZZA, LLC v. AT PIZZA LIMITED et al
| IMAPIZZA, LLC |
| AT PIZZA LIMITED, BHASKER DHIR and RUPERT LYLE |
| 1:2017cv02327 |
| November 3, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Washington, DC Office |
| 11001 |
| Timothy J. Kelly |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 501 |
| 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
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of 70 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 62 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/27/21. (lctjk2)
|
|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's first, third, fourth and fifth causes of action are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The parties shall meet, confer, and file with the Court a proposed schedule for briefing on a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining cause of action on the ground of forum non conveniens by October 1, 2018. Defendants' answer shall not b e due until 14 days after the Court resolves their renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall also file an affidavit setting forth sufficient facts to establish its citizenship for diversity purposes by October 1, 2018. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/24/2018. (lctjk2)
|
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 District Of Columbia 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.
