Wright v. Pleasureland, Incorporated et al
| Jon Q. Wright |
| Pleasureland, Incorporated and Vomela Companies, The |
| 0:2020cv02523 |
| December 11, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Leo I Brisbois |
| Eric C Tostrud |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Pleasureland, Incorporated, Vomela Companies, The. (CLK) |
| Filing 4 REPORT ON FILING OF COPYRIGHT ACTION (The Clerk's Office will mail a copy of the AO 121 and the Complaint to the U.S Copyright Office.) cc: Copyright Office. (Chadwick, Eric) Modified text on 12/14/2020 (CLK). |
| Filing 3 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Request to Clerk's Office to Issue Summons for Copyright Infringement All Parties. (Chadwick, Eric) |
| Filing 2 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Eric C. Tostrud per Civil (6th - Copyright, Trademark) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Please use case number 20-cv-2523 ECT/LIB. (CLK) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Copyright Infringement against Pleasureland, Incorporated, The Vomela Companies (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-8302609) filed by Jon Q. Wright. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Exhibit(s), #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Chadwick, Eric) |
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 Minnesota 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.
