Overseas Direct Import Co., Ltd. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Overseas Direct Import Co., Ltd.
Defendant: Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Prestige Global Co., Ltd.
Case Number: 1:2010cv04919
Filed: June 24, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: John G. Koeltl
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 153 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68. filed by Family Dollar Stores, Inc. For the reasons stated above, FDSs motion for attorneys fees is denied. ODIs request for attorneys fees incurred in responding to FDSs motion is also denied. FDS has ten days from the receipt of this decision to file a Bill of Costs with the Clerk pursuant to Local Rule 54.1. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 140. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/12/2013) (djc)
March 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 88 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Prestige Global Co., Ltd as to Counts I, III, IV, V and VIII of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Defendant Family Dollars breach of contrac t counterclaim in their entirety, and a filed by Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Prestige Global Co., Ltd. Accordingly, FDSs motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim for breach of contract is denied. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, they are either moot or without merit. The Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 71. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/13/2013) (djc)
November 24, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal after the decision of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina re: 3 MOTION to Dismiss Or Transfer Case to the Western District of North Carolina, filed by Family Dollar Stores, Inc. This case is stayed pending further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 3. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/23/10) (cd)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Overseas Direct Import Co., Ltd. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Overseas Direct Import Co., Ltd.
Represented By: Ezra Sutton
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: Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
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: Prestige Global Co., Ltd.
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.


Why Is My Information Online?