Ward v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al
| Michael Ward |
| Barnes & Noble, Inc., Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., Francis Heaney and Patrick Blindauer |
| 1:2013cv07851 |
| November 5, 2013 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of U.S. |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| 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
51
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 38 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Patrick Blindauer, Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., Barnes & Noble, Inc., Francis Heaney: For the foregoing r easons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Pursuant to the Court's Order of March 4, 2015 (Docket No. 44), the parties' Joint Pretrial Order and related materials - the substance of which are outlined in the C ourt's summary judgment opinion, see Ward I, 2015 WL 765833, at *11, and the Court's Individual Rules and Practices - are due twenty-one days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. Unless the Court orders otherwise for goo d cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial two weeks thereafter. And finally, if the parties are interested in a referral to Magistrate Judge Maas for settlement purposes, they shall so advise the Court by joint letter as soon as possible. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 41. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/30/2015) (tn)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER re: 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patrick Blindauer, Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., Barnes & Noble, Inc., Francis Heaney: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' summary judgment mot ion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, all of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed except for his copyright infringement claims based on the texts of the Challenged Books to the extent those claims are based on Plaintiff 9;s U.S. copyright registrations. Within thirty days of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The parties shall also follow Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, which identifies submissions that must be made at or before the time of the Joint Pretrial Order, including any motions in limine. If this action is to be tried before a jury, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Indi vidual Rules and Practices. Jury instructions may not be submitted after the Joint Pretrial Order due date, unless they meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(a)(2)(A). If this action is to be tried to the Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial tw o weeks after the Joint Pretrial Order is filed. Finally, if the parties are interested in a referral to Magistrate Judge Maas for settlement purposes, they shall so advise the Court by joint letter as soon as possible. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 19. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/23/2015) (tn)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
