Best v. Mobile Streams, Inc. et al
| Blake Best |
| Mobile Streams, Inc., Mobile Streams, PLC, Mobilefunster, Inc., Funmobile, LTD and John Does |
| 1:2012cv00564 |
| July 25, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| HAMILTON |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Karen L. Litkovitz |
| Copyrights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 |
| Plaintiff |
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
254
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 252 ; Plaintiffs motion for statutory damages is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants Mobile Streams, Inc., Funmobile, Ltd., and Mobilefunster, Inc. is permanently enjoined from infringing plaintif fs copyrighted work, including by use of the internet to reproduce, copy, distribute, or make available for distribution to the public plaintiffs copyrighted work, unless plaintiff provides defendants with a license or express permission. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 against each of the Mobile defendants for a total statutory damages award of $4,500. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $2,500. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 7/29/15. (mb)
|
|
Filing
252
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 244 MOTION for Statutory Damages be Granted in part and Denied in part as follows: Defendants Mobile Streams, Inc., Funmobile, Ltd., and Mobilefunster, Inc. be Permanently Enjoined from infringing plaintiff's copyrighted work, including by use of the internet to reproduce, copy, distribute, or make available for distribution to the public plaintiff's copyrighted work, unless plaintiff provides defendants with a license or express pe rmission. Further, that plaintiff be Awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 against each of the Mobile Defendants for a total statutory damages award of $4,500; and attorney's fees in the amount of $2,500. Objections to R&R due by 7/20/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 7/2/2015. (art)
|
|
Filing
233
ORDER following 231 Informal Discovery Conference. A follow-up status conference will be held on 4/7/2015 at 2:00 pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/17/2015. (art)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's 215 Motion for Leave to File a sur-reply is Granted. Recommendation that AT&T Mobility's 210 MOTION TO DISMISS Counts I, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of plaintiff's fourth amended complaint be Granted. (Objections to R&R due by 3/30/2015). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/10/2015. (art)
|
|
Filing
223
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 2/17/2015. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
207
ORDER granting 191 AT&T's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; adopting Report and Recommendation 204 ; overruling plaintiff's objections to the R&R. Plaintiff's claims against AT&T are dismissed without prejudice. This case remains pending against defendant AT&T Mobility. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 10/7/14. (mb)
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant AT&T Mobilit's 190 Motion for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff is Ordered to file a fourth amended complaint within (21) days consistent with this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 9/16/2014. (art)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER that plaintiff's MOTION to withdraw documents 189 is Granted and documents 185 187 are Stricken from the Record; plaintiff's 184 MOTION to strike AT&T's motion for a Court order is Denied; defendant AT&T's 181 MOTION for a Court order is Granted and plaintiff is Ordered to comply with FRCP 5(b)(1) in all future filings; and plaintiff's 172 letter to the District Judge is Stricken. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 6/16/2014. (art)
|
|
Filing
188
ORDER denying plaintiff's 162 , 166 emergency motion and amended emergency motion for order to preserve evidence; denying plaintiff's 175 reply memorandum; denying 176 plaintiff's request for judicial notice in support of his motion for an emergency order; denying 179 plaintiff's Motion to supplement limited expedited discovery ; and denying 180 plaintiff's request for judicial notice in support of his motion to supplement limited discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/14/2014. (art)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 136 . Plaintiff's claims against defendants Mobile Streams, PLC and Christian Kwol-Leun Yau Heilesen are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 3/11/14. (mb)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 135 . The answer of Mobile Streams, Inc. is STRICKEN. Default Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff against Mobile Streams, Inc. The amount to be determined. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 2/26/14. (mb)
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER that plaintiff's 121 MOTION to substitute AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility in place of John Does 1 and 2 is Granted. Plaintiff's third amended complaint shall proceed againt the AT&T defendants only. Plaintiff is Ordered to submit a r evised third amended complaint reflecting these changes and listing only the AT&T entities as defendants within (30) days of the entry of this Order. Upon receipt of plaintiff's revised third amended complaint, a summons form, and a US Marshall form for each of the AT&T defendants named, the Court shll order service of process on the new defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's claims against defendants Mobile Streams, PLC and Christian Kwok-Leun Yau Heilesen be Dismissed for failure to show good cause for not timely serving these defendants are required by FRCP 4(m). ( Objections to R&R due by 1/30/2014). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/10/2014. (art)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER denying as Moot plaintiff's unopposed 98 Motions to take Discovery prior to a FRCP 26(f) conference in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 8/21/2013. (art)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER denying as moot all motions pertaining to plaintiff's first amended complaint filed in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/12/2013. (art)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER that defendants shall file responses to plaintiff's 62 MOTION to file a second amended complaint on or before 2/6/2013; plaintiff has until 2/20/2013 to file a reply memorandum. Any other responsive or reply briefs regarding other motions currently before the Court are stayed pending this Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/23/2013. (art)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER denying plaintiff's 39 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/9/2013. (art)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER following telephone status conference held this date. The Court Stays the time deadlines for the filing of any responses and replies to the pending motions until after the 1/14/2013 conference, at which time new deadlines will be set if necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/4/2013. (art)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. (1) Plaintiff's motions to strike (Docs. 33 , 35 ) are DENIED as moot; (2) Plaintiff's motions for expedited discovery (Docs. 11 , 12 ) are DENIED; and (3) Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 42 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/30/12. (mee)
|
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.
