LA Vapor, Inc. v. L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop et al
| LA Vapor, Inc. |
| L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop, SAS Industries Company LLC, Arthur Sanoyan and John Does 1-20 |
| 3:2021cv00591 |
| November 1, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| David Keesler |
| Frank D Whitney |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. § 44 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER granting #11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Astourian for LA Vapor, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Attorney served via NEF). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 12/7/21. (mga)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #10 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint. L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop answer due 1/7/2022; SAS Industries Company LLC answer due 1/7/2022; Arthur Sanoyan answer due 1/7/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 12/7/21. (mga)
|
| Notice to Paro Astourian: Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1 you are required to Register for E-Filing Access or Link Existing Account #Link. (Attorney served via NEF) Deadline by 12/14/2021. (mga) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Paro M. Astourian Filing fee $ 288, receipt number ANCWDC-5346625. by LA Vapor, Inc.. (Roche, Edward). Motions referred to David Keesler. |
| Filing 10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop, SAS Industries Company LLC, Arthur Sanoyan. (McDermott, Richard). Motions referred to David Keesler. |
| Filing 9 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by LA Vapor, Inc.. SAS Industries Company LLC served on 11/19/2021, answer due 12/10/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Delivery Confirmation)(Roche, Edward) |
| Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by LA Vapor, Inc.. L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop served on 11/17/2021, answer due 12/8/2021; Arthur Sanoyan served on 11/17/2021, answer due 12/8/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Delivery Confirmation, #2 Exhibit B - Delivery Confirmation)(Roche, Edward) |
| Filing 7 Exhibit by LA Vapor, Inc.. Exhibit to #1 Complaint (Roche, Edward) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Ray Kiger on behalf of LA Vapor, Inc. (Kiger, Christopher) |
| Filing 5 REPORT on the Filing of an action regarding patent and/or trademark numbers contained in complaint. (Attachments: #1 Complaint) (tlj) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued Electronically as to L.A. Vapors Elite Smoke Shop, SAS Industries Company LLC, Arthur Sanoyan. NOTICE: Counsel shall print the summons and serve with other case opening documents in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4 . (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 Summons)(tlj) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Frank D. Whitney and Magistrate Judge David Keesler. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the #Case Assignment Packet. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(tlj) |
| Clerk's Entry and Service of #Initial Scheduling Order and #Certificate of Initial Attorney FRCP 26(f) Conference Form pursuant to the Standing Order Governing Civil Case Management before the Honorable Frank D. Whitney (3:07-mc-47 (Doc. No. 2)). The parties are directed to click on the link above to retrieve the Order. (tlj) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Edward F. Roche on behalf of LA Vapor, Inc. (Roche, Edward) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by LA Vapor, Inc. (Roche, Edward) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANCWDC-5296946), filed by LA Vapor, Inc..(Roche, Edward) |
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.
- 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.
