The Biltmore Company v. NU U, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: The Biltmore Company
Defendant: Nu U, Inc., Top 10 Prom, LLC and top10, LLC
Counter_claimant: top10, LLC, Top 10 Prom, LLC and Nu U, Inc.
Counter_defendant: The Biltmore Company
Case Number: 1:2015cv00288
Filed: December 23, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Asheville Office
County: Buncombe
Presiding Judge: Dennis Howell
Presiding Judge: Martin Reidinger
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1127
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 147 ORDER denying 125 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees. FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Objection to 141 Plaintiff's Bill of Costs is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART, and 134 Plaintiff's Bill of Costs is GRANTED to the extent that the Plaintiff is hereby awarded $9,502.25 in costs. FURTHER ORDERED that 132 Defendant's Motion for Clarification of Judgment and Order is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/22/2018. (khm)
June 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 131 ORDER granting 130 Motion to Seal Document, and Exhibit A to the Haas Affidavit shall be filed permanently under seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/11/2017. (kby)
May 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 124 JUDGMENT in favor of The Biltmore Company against Nu U, Inc. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/25/2017. (khm)
January 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER denying Pltf's 67 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/30/17. (ejb)
December 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the Defendant's Chapter 75 counterclaim. In all other respects, the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/20/2016. (khm)
December 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER granting 45 Defendant's Motion to Amend, and the deadline for the completion of depositions is hereby extended for a period of 30 days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants Request for Ruling 50 is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mediation deadline having passed, parties shall file a Mediation Report with the Court within 7 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/28/2016. (thh)
April 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 33 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER re 31 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Protective Order. See Order for further details. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/22/2016. (kby)
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 North Carolina Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: The Biltmore Company v. NU U, 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: The Biltmore Company
Represented By: Wyatt S. Stevens
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: Nu U, Inc.
Represented By: Rebecca Elizabeth Crandall
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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: Top 10 Prom, LLC
Represented By: Rebecca Elizabeth Crandall
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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: top10, LLC
Represented By: Rebecca Elizabeth Crandall
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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 ]
Counter_claimant: top10, LLC
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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 ]
Counter_claimant: Top 10 Prom, LLC
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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 ]
Counter_claimant: Nu U, Inc.
Represented By: Joseph Pinckney McGuire
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 ]
Counter_defendant: The Biltmore Company
Represented By: Wyatt S. Stevens
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?