D. H. Pace Company, Inc. v. AOD Group, LLC et al
| D. H. Pace Company, Inc. |
| AOD Group, LLC and Garrett Waldrop |
| 1:2012cv03854 |
| November 2, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Fulton |
| J. Owen Forrester |
| Trademark |
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
84
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 68 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's false advertising claim based on Defendant's claim to be a natio nal company. It is further DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's allegations, in paragraphs 60, 63, 99, and 111 of the proposed second amended complaint, that Defendant breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to disclose information or disgo rge profits. It is GRANTED with respect to all remaining allegations and claims sought to be asserted. Plaintiff may file its Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 54 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/9/2014. (anc)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 53 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Withdraw Their Fourth Counterclaim and DENYING AS MOOT the 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to AOD's Fourth Counterclaim. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/15/2013. (anc)
|
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 Georgia Northern 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.
