Trio v. Turing Video, Inc.
| Sandra Trio and Turing Video, Inc. |
| 1:2021cv04409 |
| August 18, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 67
AGREED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 2/24/2022. Mailed notice(gel, )
|
|
Filing 66
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Having review the parties' 3/15/23 status report #63 , the Court hereby sets case management dates as follows: the parties shall exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by 4/28/23, issue written discovery by 5/12/23, amend their pleadings (to add claims, parties, etc.) by 9/1/23, and complete fact discovery by 1/31/24. The Court appreciates that the parties do not want a settlement conference right now, but nonetheless encourages them to exhaust the possibility of settlement before spending time and money on expert discovery or dispositive motions. To this end, Plaintiff shall make a formal, written demand by 2/5/24 and Defendant shall respond by 2/12/24. The parties shall file an updated status report by 2/16/24 confirming that fact discovery is complete and that they have complied with the Court's directives concerning settlement, and indicating definitively whether either side requires expert discovery. If at any time the parties agree that a settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge could be helpful, they should email Judge Blakey's Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at gloria_lewis@ilnd.uscourts.gov to so advise, and the Court will enter an appropriate referral order. Finally, the parties note in their status report that they submitted a confidentiality order, but they never filed a motion relating to the entry of that order. As a result, the order was never entered on the docket. The parties have clearly been operating as if the order was entered on the date submitted, however, see, e.g., #36 , and the Court therefore enters the order on the docket today, nunc pro tunc to 2/24/22. Mailed notice (gel, ) Modified on 4/13/2023 to correct date. (gel, ).
|
|
Filing 65
ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Turing Video, Inc.(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 64
JURY Demand (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 63
STATUS Report JOINT by Sandra Trio (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 62
NOTICE by Erin Bolan Hines of Change of Address (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 61
NOTICE by Melissa Anne Siebert of Change of Address (Siebert, Melissa)
|
|
Filing 60
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time #58 is granted and any answer shall be filed on or before 3/29/2023. Motion hearing set for 3/8/2023 is stricken. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 59
NOTICE of Motion by Erin Bolan Hines for presentment of extension of time #58 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/8/2023 at 11:00 AM. (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 58
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for extension of time (Unopposed) (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 57
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff sued Defendant for failing to obtain informed written consent and a release before obtaining biometric identifiers, in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b) (count 1); and for disclosing biometric identifiers and information before obtaining consent, in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(d) (count 2), and she sues on behalf of "all individuals in the State of Illinois who had their facial geometry, fingerprints, or other biometric data collected, captured, received, obtained, maintained, stored, disseminated or disclosed by Turing during the applicable statutory period." [1-1] 68. On 9/26/22, this Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, #45 , #46 ; in particular, the Court held that the claim at issue was not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, because "Turing's obligations under BIPA stand wholly independent of whether Plaintiff's union may have consented to Jewel-Osco, her employer, collecting and disseminating her biometric data. In other words, resolution of the state law BIPA claims would not require this Court to interpret any collective-bargaining agreement, and instead depend upon the entirely unrelated question of whether Turing provided Plaintiff with the necessary disclosures and obtained from her the required written release before it collected and disseminated her biometric information." Defendant asks the Court to reconsider the matter. See #47 . In a motion to reconsider, the movant must establish "a manifest error of law or fact or present newly discovered evidence." Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Boyd v. Tornier, Inc., 656 F.3d 487, 492 (7th Cir. 2011)); Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008). "'A manifest error' is not demonstrated by the disappointment" of the losing party; instead, Defendant must demonstrate a "'wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.'" Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Here, Defendant fails to meet the heavy burden needed for reconsideration. The Court did not err on the law or facts, but simply declined to accept Defendant's arguments on preemption. Although Defendant disagrees, the Court continues to find it significant that Defendant is not a party to any CBA or contract with Plaintiff's employer; nor are any of the putative class members likely to be union members subject to a CBA. Thus, as in Figueroa v. Kronos Inc., 454 F. Supp. 3d 772, 791 (N.D. Ill. 2020), "it is speculative at this stage for" Defendant to suggest that "claims involving a non-employer... vendor like" Defendant "will turn on interpreting a collective bargaining agreement to which it was not a party." All of the BIPA cases Defendant cites involved claims made by a union member against the employer, which was a party to the CBA. That is not this case. And the non-BIPA cases Defendant cites do not compel a different outcome. In Kimbro v. Pepsico, Inc., for example, the Seventh Circuit mused that when a claim is preempted, suing the supervisors as well as the employer does not alter the outcome because, "the burden of the liability will come to rest on the employer, making it the de facto defendant in a de facto suit under state law for breach of a collective bargaining contract. And this section 301 does not permit." 215 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2000). But nothing in the current record before the Court suggests that the same principle applies here. The complaint does not assert any claim against Jewel-Osco, express or implied. As in Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 407 (1988), the factual questions of whether Defendant obtained informed written consent and a release before collecting biometric data and disclosed biometric data before obtaining consent "pertain to the conduct" of Plaintiff and Defendant, and do not require the Court to interpret any term of any collective-bargaining agreement. The right to enforce Defendant's compliance with the BIPA comes, not from any CBA, but from the state statute. As a result, the claims remain viable here, and the Court denies Turing's motion to reconsider #47 . The Court also declines to certify the matter for interlocutory appeal. The Court may certify for immediate interlocutory appeal otherwise unappealable orders that involve "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion" and where "an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Other than Defendant's argument, the Court does not find "substantial ground for difference of opinion"; Miller and the line of cases following it all involved BIPA claims asserted by union member plaintiffs against the employer, which collected the biometric data pursuant to an authorization contained in a CBA negotiated by that employer and the union to which the plaintiffs belonged. That is not this case, and Defendant has not offered persuasive authority that Miller should be extended to the facts alleged here, particularly where the putative class as defined by Plaintiff likely encompasses individuals who are not union members and thus are not bound by any CBA. Defendant shall answer the complaint by 3/8/23, and the parties shall file a joint status report by 3/15/23, using the model template set forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 56
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. (tg, )
|
|
Filing 55
REPLY by Turing Video, Inc. to MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for reconsideration regarding memorandum opinion and order #46 and to certify order for appeal #47 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 54
RESPONSE by Plaintiff Sandra Trio PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TURING VIDEO, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR APPEAL (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 53
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend time #51 and strikes the 11/3/22 Notice of Motion date. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion for reconsideration #47 by 11/21/22, and Defendant shall file any reply by 11/30/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 52
NOTICE of Motion by Andrew C. Ficzko for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief #51 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 11/3/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 51
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio to Extend Motion for Reconsideration and to Certify Order for Appeal Briefing Schedule UNOPPOSED (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 50
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Defendant asks this Court to reconsider its LMRA preemption holding; in addition or in the alternative, Defendant asks the Court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). See #47 . Plaintiff shall respond to the motion by 10/31/22, and Defendant shall file any reply by 11/7/22. The Court will rule on the motion in due course. The 10/20/22 Notice of motion date is stricken. The Court also strikes the 10/24/22 responsive pleading deadline. The Court will set a revised deadline when it rules on the motion for reconsideration. Mailed notice (gel,)
|
|
Filing 49
NOTICE of Motion by Erin Bolan Hines for presentment of motion for reconsideration #47 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 10/20/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 48
MEMORANDUM by Turing Video, Inc. in support of motion for reconsideration #47 (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 47
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for reconsideration regarding memorandum opinion and order #46 and to certify order for appeal (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 46
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 9/26/2022. Mailed notice(gel, )
|
|
Filing 45
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss #27 . The Defendant shall file its answer to Plaintiffs' complaint on or before 10/24/2022. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 44
WITHDRAWING AMBRIA D. MAHOMES as counsel for Defendant Turing Video, Inc. and substituting Erin Bolan Hines as counsel of record (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 43
SEALED REPLY by Turing Video, Inc. to sealed response #37 , memorandum in support of motion, #28 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 42
REPLY by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. to Response #35 , memorandum in support of motion, #28 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 41
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Consistent with the parties' agreed confidentiality order, the Court grants Defendant's motion for leave to file certain portions of its reply brief under seal #38 . The Court also grants Defendant's motion for leave to exceed the page limit #39 . The 4/12/22 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 40
NOTICE of Motion by Erin Bolan Hines for presentment of motion for leave to file #38 , motion for leave to file excess pages #39 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/12/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 39
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 38
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for leave to file UNDER SEAL (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 37
SEALED RESPONSE PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 36
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Consistent with the parties' agreed confidentiality order, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to redact or file certain portions of her brief and certain exhibits under seal #33 . The Court also grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed the page limit #34 . Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 35
RESPONSE by Plaintiff Sandra Trio PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 34
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio for leave to file PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT IN PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 33
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio for leave to file UNDER SEAL (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 32
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her opposition instanter #31 and directs her to file her opposition [31-1] as a separate docket entry. Defendant shall file any reply by 4/4/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 31
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio for leave to file INSTANTER HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 30
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend time #29 and sets revised case management dates as follows: Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss #13 by 3/11/22, and Defendant shall file any reply by 4/1/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 29
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio for extension of time Unopposed Motion to Extend Motion to Dismiss Briefing Schedule (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 28
MEMORANDUM by Turing Video, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss #27 TURING VIDEO'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 27
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. to dismiss TURING VIDEO'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 26
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Defendant's motion for leave to file an amended (and oversized) motion to dismiss #21 and denies the prior motion to dismiss #13 . Defendant shall file the amended motion [21-1] and memorandum in support [21-2] as separate docket entries. The 1/27/22 Notice of Motion date is stricken. The prior discovery and briefing schedule stands, see #25 . Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 25
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion to extend time #20 and sets revised case management dates as follows: the parties shall complete limited jurisdictional discovery by 2/4/22, and Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss #13 by 3/4/22. Defendant shall file any reply in support of its motion to dismiss by 3/25/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 24
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra Trio by Ryan F Stephan (Stephan, Ryan)
|
|
Filing 23
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra Trio by James B. Zouras (Zouras, James)
|
|
Filing 22
NOTICE of Motion by Erin Bolan Hines for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages,,, #21 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 1/27/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 21
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for leave to file excess pages , MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for leave to file TURING VIDEO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (proposed Amended MTD), #2 Exhibit B (proposed Memo ISO Amended MTD with Exs 1-4))(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 20
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc.TO EXTEND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY SCHEDULE AND MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE UNOPPOSED (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 19
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants the parties' joint motion to extend time #18 and sets revised case management dates as follows: the parties shall complete limited jurisdictional discovery by 1/14/22, and Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss #13 by 2/11/22. Defendant shall file any reply in support of their motion to dismiss #13 by 2/25/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 18
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY SCHEDULE AND MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 17
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion for limited jurisdictional discovery #16 and vacates the prior schedule on Defendant's motion to dismiss, see #15 . The parties shall complete such limited discovery by 12/15/21, and Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss #13 by 1/5/22. Defendant shall file any reply by 1/19/22. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 16
MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra Trio PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY UNOPPOSED (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 15
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court is in receipt of Defendant's motion to dismiss #13 . Plaintiff is advised to review the Court's Standing Order on Motions to Dismiss, which is available on the Court's homepage at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Consistent with the purpose of the Federal Rules "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, this Court's Standing Order requires Plaintiff to make an election as to whether Plaintiff will amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(1), or stand on the current complaint and proceed with briefing on the motion to dismiss. To this end, Plaintiff shall file either: (1) an amended complaint within the time limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (by 11/2/21); or (2) a response to the motion to dismiss by 11/9/21. If Plaintiff files a response, Defendant shall file a reply by 11/23/21. If Plaintiff elects to amend her pleading in response to the motion to dismiss, then Defendant shall file within 21 days of the amended pleading either: (1) an answer; or (2) a revised motion to dismiss. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 14
MEMORANDUM by Turing Video, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss #13 Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. to dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 12
STATUS Report JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT by Sandra Trio (Ficzko, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion for a second extension of time #10 ; Defendant shall respond to the complaint by 10/12/21. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for extension of time to file answer or otherwise respond to complaint (Second Unopposed) (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 9
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time #8 ; Defendant shall respond to the complaint by 9/27/21. Additionally, the parties shall file a status report by 9/30/21, using the model template set forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. Counsel shall review and fully comply with all of this Court's own standing orders, which are available on Judge Blakey's information page on the Court's official website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/. The Court expects counsel to appear at all hearing dates set by the Court or noticed by the parties. If an attorney has a conflict with a set court date, the attorney must notify Judge Blakey's Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at (312) 818-6699. If appropriate, the Court will then reset the matter. Advising opposing counsel of a scheduling conflict is not a substitute for communicating directly with the Court. Mailed notice (gel, )
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION by Defendant Turing Video, Inc. for extension of time to file answer UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 7
MAILED Notice of Removal letter to Plaintiffs counsel (gw, )
|
|
Filing 6
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Turing Video, Inc. by Ambria Dominise Mahomes (Mahomes, Ambria)
|
|
Filing 5
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Turing Video, Inc. by Melissa Anne Siebert (Siebert, Melissa)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Turing Video, Inc. (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 3
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Turing Video, Inc. by Erin Bolan Hines (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 2
CIVIL Cover Sheet (Hines, Erin)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, case number (2021 CH 03264) filed by Turing Video, Inc. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18579438. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Hines, Erin)
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mp, )
|
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 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
| Search for this case: Trio v. Turing Video, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sandra Trio | |
| Represented By: | Andrew C. Ficzko |
| Represented By: | James B. Zouras |
| Represented By: | Ryan F Stephan |
| 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: Turing Video, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Erin Bolan Hines |
| Represented By: | Ambria Dominise Mahomes |
| Represented By: | Melissa Anne Siebert |
| 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.
