Libertas Technologies, L.L.C. v. Cherryhill Management, Inc. et al
Libertas Technologies, L.L.C. |
Cherryhill Management, Inc. and Todd Schwartz |
1:2010cv00935 |
December 27, 2010 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Cincinnati Office |
HAMILTON |
Susan J. Dlott |
Karen L. Litkovitz |
Copyrights |
17 U.S.C. ยง 501 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 125 ORDER following 120 Informal Discovery conference held on 4/17/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/18/2013. (art) |
Filing 116 ORDER granting defendants' 106 Motion for leave to file documents under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/16/2013. (art) |
Filing 102 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendants' 60 MOTION for Sanctions be Denied. Objections to R&R due by 3/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/8/2013. (art) |
Filing 96 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 77 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, defendants motion to amend/correct the proposed order attached to their motion to seek advice from the Register of Copyrights (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. Def endants motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 38) is DENIED.Defendants motion for an Order Issuing a Request to the Register of Copyrights Per [17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2)] and imposing a stay pending a response to the request (Doc. 39) is DENIED.. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1) |
Filing 82 NOTATION ORDER Denying as Moot defendants' 70 MOTION to Substitute a new proposed Order granting their motions for leave to amend their counterclaim and for preliminary injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/7/2012. (art) |
Filing 77 ORDER that defendant's 50 MOTION to Amend/Correct the proposed order attached to their motion to seek advice from the Register of Copyrights is Granted. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendants' 38 MOTION for Judgment on the pleadin gs be Denied; and that defendants' 39 MOTION for an Order issuing a request to the Register of Copyrights and imposing a stay pending a response to the request be Denied. ( Objections to R&R due by 12/24/2012). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/6/2012. (art) |
Filing 35 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott adopting Report and Recommendations re 28 Report and Recommendation; defts motion to dismiss plaintiff's copyright claim is denied; court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims; defts motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy (Count 8); granted in part and denied in part as to to plaintiff's claims for conversion and replevin (Counts 6 & 7); and denied as to plaintiff;s claims for tortious interference with contract and business relationships and misappropriation of trade secrets (Counts 2-5). (vp) |
Filing 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendants' 24 MOTION TO DISMISS plaintiff's copyright infringement claim under 17 USC 411 (Count 1) should be Denied. The Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law c laims (Counts 2-8). Defendants' motion to dismiss should be Granted as to plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy (Count 8); Granted in part and Denied in part as to plaintiff's claims for conversion and replevin (Counts 6, 7); and Den ied as to plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contract and business relationships and misappropriation of trade secrets (Counts 2-5). Objections to R&R due by 6/1/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/14/2012. (art) |
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 Ohio 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.