Moody v. Who Dat, Inc.
Plaintiff: Keith Moody
Defendant: Who Dat, Inc
Case Number: 2:2013cv00280
Filed: February 14, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: Carl Barbier
Presiding Judge: Karen Wells Roby
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER & REASONS: REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT; To the extent that Monogram requests an award of attorney's fees Monogram's motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 6/5/13.(sek, )
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Moody v. Who Dat, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Keith Moody
Represented By: Mark Edw. Andrews
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: Who Dat, Inc
Represented By: Gregory D. Latham
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?