Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. et al
Sheila Wolk |
Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company and Photobucket.com, Inc. |
1:2010cv04135 |
May 19, 2010 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Foley Square Office |
New York |
Robert W. Sweet |
Copyrights |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 102 OPINION: re: 83 MOTION to Admit Expert Testimony. filed by Sheila Wolk, 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Photobucket.com, Inc., 90 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Sheila Wolk. Based upon the facts and conclusions set forth above , Wolk/s motion for partial summary judgment against the Kodak Defendants, motion for summary judgment against Photobucket, motion to amend, motion to admit expert testimony and motion to investigate are denied, and the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/21/2011) (pl) Modified on 1/3/2012 (pl). |
Filing 33 OPINION: Plaintiff Sheila Wolk ("Wolk" or "Plaintiff") has moved for a preliminary injunction preventing Defendant Photobucket.com, Inc. ("Photobucket" or "Defendant") from infringing on her copyrights. This motion was considered fully submitted on November 3, 2010. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/17/2011) (mro) |
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 Southern 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.