7E FIT SPA LICENSING GROUP LLC et al v. DIER et al
| 7E FIT SPA LICENSING GROUP LLC, 7E HOLDINGS 1 LLC and 7E LLC |
| 7EFS OF WHEATRIDGE LLC, SUSAN DIER and SPECTRUM MEDSPA |
| 1:2015cv01111 |
| July 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Richard L. Young |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1121 Trademark Infringement |
| Both |
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
116
ENTRY ON COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS' AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT - 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the court GR ANTS Counterclaim Defendants' and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I (declaratory judgment for trademark infringement), Count II-IV (IFA claims), Count V (IDFPA claim), VII (breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fa ir dealing), VIII (unjust enrichment), IX (promissory estoppel, and X (tortious interference with business relations); GRANTS Counterclaim Defendants' and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count VI (breach of the covenant of good fa ith and fair dealing) against 7E LLC and Mr. Nielsen, and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Count VI against 7E Licensing and 7E Holdings; GRANTS Counterclaim Defendants' and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count XI (breach of fiduciar y duty) against 7E Licensing and 7E LLC and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Count XI against 7E Holdings and Mr. Nielsen; GRANTS Counterclaim Defendants' and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts XII-XIII (fraud and fraudulent induc ement) against 7E LLC and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Counts XII-XIII against 7E Licensing, 7E Holdings, and Mr. Nielsen; and GRANTS Counterclaim Defendants' and Third Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count XIV (constructive fraud) agai nst 7E Licensing and 7E LLC, and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Count XIV against 7E Holdings and Mr. Nielsen. In light of these rulings, 7E LLC is dismissed as a Counterclaim Defendant and The Full Body Shop d/b/a Medspa is dismissed as a Counterclai m Plaintiff. The Counterclaims that remain are: Count VI (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing) against 7E Licensing and 7E Holdings; Count XI (breach of fiduciary duty) against 7E Holdings and Mr. Nielsen, Count XII (fraud) against 7E Licensing, 7E Holdings, and Mr. Nielsen; Count XIII (fraudulent inducement) against 7E Licensing, 7E Holdings, and Mr. Nielsen; and Count XIV (constructive fraud) against 7E Holdings and Mr. Nielsen. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/16/2016. (LBT)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER denying Counterclaim/Third Party Defendants' 53 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 6/27/2016. (TMD)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER denying Smith Franchisees' 71 Motion to Bifurcate; striking 7E Plaintiffs and Mr. Nielsen 85 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Because the 7E Plaintiffs and Mr. Nielsen f ailed to state a good cause for its third motion for extension of time, the Court finds no basis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) to grant this third motion. It is hereby DENIED. Therefore, Docket No. 103 and Docket No. 104; 1:15-cv- 01111, Docket No. 87 and Docket No. 88 are STRICKEN (see Order for additional details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 5/9/2016. (SWM)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
