Sprint Nextel Corporation et al v. Yoak
| Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. |
| Jamie D. Yoak |
| 4:2013cv01292 |
| July 9, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Charles |
| Audrey G. Fleissig |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
268
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions for civil contempt for violating the Court's injunction dated October 25, 2013, is DENIED. (Doc. No. 52 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on August 18, 2015. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
243
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movants motion to modify the subpoena served by Plaintiffs on First State Bank of St. Charles, Missouri, in aid of execution of judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 222.) Movants shall have seven days from t he date of this Memorandum and Order to propose an appropriate written protective order, and if not agreed to by Plaintiffs, to submit said protective order to the Court for review. re: 222 MOTION to Quash by James and Virginia Yoak filed by Movant James Yoak Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/10/15. (JWJ)
|
|
Filing
136
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... Plaintiffs' request to present the testimony of non-party AT&T's representative by contemporaneous transmission at the hearing scheduled for December 10, 2014 (and continuing to December 11, 2014, if necessary) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/2/2014. (NEB)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motions to dismiss this case due to lack of proper service are DENIED. (Doc. No. 28 & Doc. No. 32.) The Court will issue a separate Order on Plaintiffs' motion for entry of f inal judgment, and a separate scheduling Order with respect to Plaintiffs motion for an Order directing Defendant to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for violation of the permanent injunction issued in this case. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/26/2014. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final default judgment is GRANTED with respect to liability. (Doc. No. 17.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Permanent Injunction is entered in this case as follows: Def endant Jamie D. Yoak is immediately and permanently ENJOINED from: a. accessing, altering, changing, or modifying any Sprint account without authorization; b. purchasing, selling, trafficking, porting, transferring, converting, procuring, interferin g with, and/or using, directly or indirectly, any telephone number of a Sprint customer without the customers permission; c. purchasing, selling, trafficking, porting, transferring, converting, and/or interfering with, directly or indirectly, any te lephone number provided by any other telecommunications company and porting or attempting to port that number to Sprint; d. contacting or communicating with Sprint, its customers, or any other telecommunications company for the purpose of, or in an y way related to, accessing or altering a Sprint customer's account without authorization, unlawfully porting a telephone number related to a Sprint customer, or otherwise perpetrating a fraud or deception of any kind involving Sprint or a Sp rint customer; e. harassing Sprint or its customers; f. accessing Sprints computers through any deceptive means, including but not limited to deceptive statements to Sprint customer service representatives intended to cause them to access Sprint co mputers, online account access via the internet, and calls to Sprint's telephone automated systems; g. using or encouraging or permitting others to use false or fraudulent names and/or identities or illegally posing as a Sprint customer in any communications to, with, or regarding Sprint; h. illegally acquiring, purchasing, transmitting, transporting, transferring, leasing, and/or reselling any Sprint Product (including any product, good, or service manufactured, distributed, sold, or provided to customers or offered for sale by Sprint, including but not limited to Sprint handsets accessories, component parts, activation materials, or other items affiliated with Sprint or bearing a Sprint trademark); i. making, encouraging, or permitting others to make false representations that Defendant or anyone working with or on her behalf is associated or affiliated in any way with Sprint; and j. assisting, encouraging, directing, facilitating, or condoning any other person or enti ty to engage in any such conduct prohibited by this Permanent Injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall complete discovery on damages by December 20, 2013, and shall submit a full accounting of its damages, including costs and attorney s fees, as well as an affidavit or declaration in support thereof within 14 days from the date discovery is completed. If Plaintiffs require additional time to conduct discovery, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the discovery deadline u pon a showing of good cause. Once the damages issue has been resolved, the Court will issue a final judgment in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that along with their submission on damages, Plaintiffs shall submit documentation in support of an award of attorney's fee incurred in this action. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/25/13. (KXS)
|
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 Missouri 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
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.
