Stora v. Don't Ask Why Outfitters et al
| Skiboky Shavar Stora |
| American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Brandy Melville Corporation, Don't Ask Why Outfitters, Retail Royalty Company, Jay L. Shottenstein and Theodore R. Remaklus Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P. |
| 1:2015cv07106 |
| December 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Robert M. Levy |
| Roslynn R. Mauskopf |
| Trademark |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Trademark |
| 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
106
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton , 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).It is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint be granted. (Mot. to Dismiss 15-CV-7106 (Doc. No. 59); Mot. to Dismiss 16-CV-180 (Doc. Nos. 34-35).) It is further ordered that all of Stora's pending motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the accompanying judgment to plaintiff Skiboky Shavar Stora, pro se, note the mailing on the docket, and close these cases. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/15/2017. (Taronji, Robert)
|
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 New York 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.
