Polaris Industries Inc. v. Mangum et al
Polaris Industries, Inc. |
Allen Mangum, Natalya aka Natasha Mangum and MTN. TOP Products, LLC |
0:2023cv00614 |
March 13, 2023 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation owning 10 percent or more of its stock, or any subsidiaries to report for Polaris Industries, Inc.. (Boyd, Felicia) |
Filing 3 STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document Confidential for #2 Sealed Document(s) - #2 Sealed Exhibit 1, [2-1] Sealed Exhibit 2, [2-2] Sealed Exhibit 3, [2-3] Sealed Exhibit 4, [2-4] Sealed Exhibit 5, [2-5] Sealed Exhibit 6 . (Boyd, Felicia) |
Filing 2 SEALED EXHIBIT Exhibit 1 re #1 Complaint, by Polaris Industries, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Sealed Exhibit 2, #2 Exhibit(s) Sealed Exhibit 3, #3 Exhibit(s) Sealed Exhibit 4, #4 Exhibit(s) Sealed Exhibit 5, #5 Exhibit(s) Sealed Exhibit 6)(Boyd, Felicia) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against MTN. TOP Products, LLC, Allen Mangum, Natalya aka Natasha Mangum (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-10132244) filed by Polaris Industries, Inc.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 7, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Boyd, Felicia) |
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.