Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research v. Kinley-Davis
| Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research |
| Carla Kinley-Davis |
| 2:2024mc50209 |
| March 5, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Jonathan JC Grey |
| Elizabeth A Stafford |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER of RECUSAL and REASSIGNING CASE from District Judge Paul D. Borman to District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey. (SSch)
|
| Filing 3 DECLARATION by EMMA L. BARATTA re #1 INITIATING MOTION to Compel Compliance With Third-Party Subpoena Duces Tecum by Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9698510 - Fee: $52 dollars filed by Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit 1 - February 4, 2021 trademark application serial number 90/509,259 and specimens, #3 Exhibit 2 - September 6, 2021 Office Action issued by the USPTO, #4 Exhibit 3- March 1, 2022 Response to Office Action, #5 Exhibit 4 - January 9, 2024 subpoena to Mikai Green, Esq., #6 Exhibit 5 - January 22, 2024 email from Mikai Green, Esq. to Patrice P. Jean, Esq., #7 Exhibit 6 - January 25, 2024 email from Patrice P. Jean, Esq., to Mikai Green, Esq., #8 Exhibit 7 - February 2, 2024 email from Mikai Green, Esq. to Patrice P. Jean, Esq., #9 Exhibit 8 - February 6, 2024 email from Patrice P. Jean, Esq., to Mikai Green, Esq., #10 Exhibit 9 - February 14, 2024 email from Patrice P. Jean, Esq., to Mikai Green, Esq., #11 Exhibit 10 - February 14, 2024 email from Mikai Green, Esq. to Patrice P. Jean, Esq., #12 Exhibit 11 - February 21, 2024 email from Mikai Green, Esq. to Patrice P. Jean, Esq., #13 Exhibit 12 - February 22, 2024 email from Patrice P. Jean, Esq., to Mikai Green, Esq., #14 Exhibit 13 - March 1, 2024 email from Patrice P. Jean, Esq., to Mikai Green, Esq., #15 Exhibit 14 - Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Opposition No. 91277115 docket) (Beausoleil, William) |
| Filing 2 MEMORANDUM re #1 INITIATING MOTION to Compel Compliance With Third-Party Subpoena Duces Tecum by Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9698510 - Fee: $52 dollars by Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research (Beausoleil, William) |
| Filing 1 INITIATING MOTION to Compel Compliance With Third-Party Subpoena Duces Tecum by Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9698510 - Fee: $52 dollars (Beausoleil, William) |
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 Michigan Eastern 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: Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research v. Kinley-Davis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Institute of Devine Metaphysical Research | |
| Represented By: | William J. Beausoleil |
| 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: Carla Kinley-Davis | |
| 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.
