Pearl Holding Group, Inc. v. Doxo, Inc.
Plaintiff: Pearl Holding Group, Inc., a Florida corporation and Pearl Holding Group, Inc.
Defendant: Doxo, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Doxo, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2019cv60442
Filed: February 19, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Roy K Altman
Referring Judge: Patrick M Hunt
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 19, 2019 Filing 14 ANSWER to Counterclaim by Pearl Holding Group, Inc.. (Brafman, David)
April 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT to Judge Roy Altman for all further proceedings, Chief Judge K. Michael Moore no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/11/2019. See attached document for full details. (yar)
April 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings. #11 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #11 is GRANTED. Roger M. Townsend may appear Pro Hac Vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to rtownsend@bjtlegal.com. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/1/2019. (ah03)
March 29, 2019 Filing 11 Defendant's MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Roger M. Townsend. Filing Fee $ 75.00 Receipt # 113C-11518392 by Doxo, Inc.. Responses due by 4/12/2019 (Attachments: #1 Certification - Rube 4(b) Certification of Roger Townsend, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Isicoff, Eric)
March 29, 2019 Filing 10 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christopher Michael Yannuzzi on behalf of Doxo, Inc.. Attorney Christopher Michael Yannuzzi added to party Doxo, Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Christopher Michael Yannuzzi added to party Doxo, Inc.(pty:dft). (Yannuzzi, Christopher)
March 29, 2019 Filing 9 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint , Defendant's COUNTERCLAIM against Pearl Holding Group, Inc. by Doxo, Inc.. Attorney Eric David Isicoff added to party Doxo, Inc.(pty:dft). (Isicoff, Eric)
March 18, 2019 Filing 8 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Pearl Holding Group, Inc.. Doxo, Inc. served on 3/8/2019, answer due 3/29/2019. (Brafman, David)
February 27, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt on 2/27/2019. See attached document for full details. (hhr)
February 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICK M. HUNT. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Hunt's discovery procedures. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/20/2019. (ah03)
February 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuits Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court.Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/20/2019. (ah03)
February 20, 2019 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Doxo, Inc.. (kpe)
February 20, 2019 Filing 3 FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK (kpe)
February 19, 2019 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (kpe)
February 19, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Doxo, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-11405836, filed by Pearl Holding Group, Inc., a Florida corporation. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Brafman, David)

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 Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pearl Holding Group, Inc. v. Doxo, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pearl Holding Group, Inc., a Florida corporation
Represented By: David S Brafman
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 ]
Plaintiff: Pearl Holding Group, Inc.
Represented By: David S Brafman
Represented By: Mark David Passler
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: Doxo, Inc., a Delaware corporation
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: Doxo, Inc.
Represented By: Christopher Michael Yannuzzi
Represented By: Roger M. Townsend
Represented By: Eric David Isicoff
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?