Alan Ross Machinery Corporation v. Machinio Corp.
| Alan Ross Machinery Corporation |
| Machinio Corp. |
| 1:2017cv03569 |
| May 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Thomas M. Durkin |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| 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
63
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Machinio's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, R. 56 , is granted with prejudice. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/22/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Machinio's motion to dismiss the complaint, R. 42 , is granted. Plaintiff Alan Ross Machinery's Lanham Act claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will allow Alan Ro ss to file a second amended complaint if it believes it can cure the deficiencies identified in this opinion with respect to its copyright allegations. Any motion for leave to file a second amended complaint shall be filed by December 7, 2018. The mo tion should attach a redlined comparison between the current complaint and the proposed amended complaint, and it should be supported by a brief of no more than five pages describing how the proposed amended complaint cures the deficiencies in the current complaint. Machinio is not to file a response unless directed to do so by the Court. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 11/16/2018:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Machinio's motion to dismiss the complaint, R. 16 , is granted without prejudice. If Plaintiff Alan Ross Machinery believes it can cure the deficiencies identified in this opi nion, it may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 30, 2018. The motion should attach a redlined comparison between the current complaint and the proposed amended complaint, and it should be supported by a brief of no more than five pages describing how the proposed amended complaint cures the deficiencies in the current complaint. Machinio is not to file a response unless directed to do so by the Court. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 7/9/2018:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
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 Illinois 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.
