Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe
| Strike 3 Holdings, LLC |
| John Doe |
| 5:2023cv01625 |
| December 26, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Andrew T Baxter |
| Brenda K Sannes |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Western District of New York: As the Court has been advised that this matter was filed in the incorrect district, it is ordered that this action is hereby transferred to the Western District of New York. SO ORDERED by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 1/2/2024.(kmc)
|
| DOCKET ANNOTATION: Case transferred electronically to Western District of New York pursuant to Order of Transfer dated 1/2/2024. (kmc) |
| Case transferred from New York Northern has been opened in U.S. District Court, Western District of New York as case 6:24-cv-06004, filed 01/02/2024. (amt) |
|
Filing 2
TEXT ORDER: granting Direct Assignment. The cases are deemed related. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 12/27/2023. (nmk)
|
| TEXT NOTICE: Although the plaintiff herein has named John Doe defendant(s) in the Complaint, the Clerk's Office will not issue summons(es) for service of process on a John Doe defendant(s) at this time. In the event plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims against this defendant, plaintiff shall take reasonable steps to ascertain their identity. When plaintiff determines the identity of the John Doe defendant(s), plaintiff may seek to amend the pleading to add the properly named defendant(s) pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15 and summons(es) will be issued at that time. (khr) |
| TEXT Notice pursuant to General Order 12 of Potential Related Case(s), submitted to District Judge for review and determination. Potential Related cases: 1:23-cv-1318, 1:23-cv-1313, 1:23-cv-1314, 1:23-cv-1315, 1:23-cv-1320, 1:23-cv-1321, 3:23-cv-1324, 5:23-cv-246, 5:23-cv-253, 5:23-cv-1316, 5:23-cv-1317, 5:23-cv-1322, 5:23-cv-1325, 3:23-cv-1331, 6:23-cv-1334, 1:23-cv-1335, 5:23-cv-1338, 6:23-cv-1341, 6:23-cv-1340, 6:23-cv-1329, 8:23-cv-1342, 1:23-cv-1482, 1:23-cv-1481, 1:23-cv-1487, 6:23-cv-1492, 1:23-cv-1486, 1:23-cv-1488, 6:23-cv-1506, 1:23-cv-1491, 3:23-cv-1508, 1:23-cv-1510. (khr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against John Doe (Filing fee $405 receipt number ANYNDC-6558041) filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(khr) |
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 New York Northern 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
| Search for this case: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jacqueline M. James |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: John Doe | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
