Oppenheimer v. Havas Worldwide, LLC et al
Plaintiff: David Gordon Oppenheimer
Defendant: Havas Worldwide, LLC and Arnold Worldwide, LLC
Case Number: 1:2022cv12073
Filed: December 6, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: Rya W Zobel
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 2, 2023 Filing 8 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to March 7, 2023 to File Answer or Responsive Pleading by Arnold Worldwide, LLC, Havas Worldwide, LLC.(Tarlow, Daniel)
January 12, 2023 Filing 7 STIPULATION For Extension for Leave to File Answer to Complaint on February 7, 2023 by Arnold Worldwide, LLC, Havas Worldwide, LLC. (Tarlow, Daniel)
January 6, 2023 Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel P. Tarlow on behalf of Arnold Worldwide, LLC, Havas Worldwide, LLC (Tarlow, Daniel)
December 7, 2022 Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Arnold Worldwide, LLC, Havas Worldwide, LLC. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Warnock, Douglas)
December 7, 2022 Filing 4 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Rya W. Zobel assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein. (Finn, Mary)
December 6, 2022 Filing 3 REPORT on the filing of copyright case. (Warnock, Douglas)
December 6, 2022 Filing 2 NOTICE by David Gordon Oppenheimer Filing of Copyright Action (Epstein, Andrew) Removed on 12/6/2022 as it was improperly filed. See ECF No. #3 for corrected filing (Warnock, Douglas).
December 6, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Arnold Worldwide, LLC, Havas Worldwide, LLC Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-9617776 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by David Gordon Oppenheimer. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Copyrighted Photograph, #2 Exhibit Copyright Registration for Photograph, #3 Exhibit Infringed use of copyrighted photograph, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Category Form)(Epstein, Andrew) (Main Document 1 replaced on 12/7/2022) (Warnock, Douglas).

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Oppenheimer v. Havas Worldwide, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Gordon Oppenheimer
Represented By: Andrew D. Epstein
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: Havas Worldwide, LLC
Represented By: Daniel P. Tarlow
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: Arnold Worldwide, LLC
Represented By: Daniel P. Tarlow
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?