Ottis v. Fischer Price et al
| Joseph Ottis |
| Fischer Price, Mattel Inc., Mattel Sales Corp., Robert Normile, Robert A. Eckert, Moto Concepts Inc., Bob Rossi, The Rock Foundation, Dwayne Johnson and Does 1 through 10 |
| 8:2007cv00379 |
| September 24, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Douglas |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| None |
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
73
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint filed September 24, 2007 and the Amended Complaint filed October 1, 2008, are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and 2. Each of the parties shall bear their own respective costs, expenses and fees. Civil Case Terminated. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (PCV, )
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER, On or before February 9, 2009, the parties shall electronically file a joint stipulation for dismissal (or other dispositive stipulation) and shall submit to Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, at bataillon@ned.uscourts.gov, a draft order wh ich will fully dispose of the case. If the case is being dismissed, the stipulation shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and shall state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. 2. Absent compliance with this order, this case (includin g all counterclaims andthe like) may be dismissed without further notice in accordance with NECivR 68.1. 3. The planning conference previously scheduled is cancelled upon therepresentation that this case is settled. ( Dismissal Papers Deadline due by 2/9/2009.), Planning Conference Hearing terminated. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (PCV, )
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER that on the court's own motion, the telephone planning conference previously set for January 16, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. is cancelled and is rescheduled for January 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m; plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the telephone conference.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (CJP)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER regarding Notice of Appeal to USCA 54 filed by Jonathan Lee Riches that the Petitioner shall not be granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis; The Clerk of the court shall not process the appeal to the Court of Appeals;The Clerk of Court is d irected to immediately forward a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4); The Clerk's Office is instructed to mail a copy of this order to Jonathan Lee Riches at his last known address. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party as directed)(ADB, )
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER regarding Notice of Appeal to USCA 54 that within 10 days of the date of this order, Jonathan Lee Riches shall either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting documentation or pay the required filing fee; the Clerk's Office is instructed to mail a copy of this order to Jonathan Lee Riches at his last known address. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (copy mailed to pro se party)(CJP)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 46 Motion to Intervene; denying 46 Motion to Amend; Jonathan Lee Riches's Notice of Appeal is denied as premature; the Clerks Office is directed to mail a copy of this order to Jonathan Lee Riches's at his last address of record. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (copies mailed as directed)(CJP)
|
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 Nebraska 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.
