Critter Control, Inc. v. Young
| Critter Control, Inc. |
| Cary Young |
| Cary Young |
| Critter Control, Inc. |
| 3:2013cv00695 |
| July 16, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Juliet E. Griffin |
| Aleta A. Trauger |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1121 Trademark Infringement |
| 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
152
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: On January 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 148 ) to which no timely objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is there ACCEPTED and made the f indings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 136 ) is GRANTED, and the court will issue the proposed Order Granting Pe rmanent Injunction and Other Relief (Docket No. 138 ). This Order constitutes the final judgment in this case, although the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its Permanent Injunction. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/26/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
148
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction (Docket Entry No. 136 ) be GRANTED and the proposed order submitted by the plaintiff (Docket Entry No. 138 ) be entered. It is further recommended that, upon entry of the Order, the Court cause to be entered a final judgment in this action in accordance with Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 1/23/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
114
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's R&R (Docket No. 109 ) is ADOPTED IN PART and VACATED IN PART. The plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Docket No. 90 ). The court hereby GRANTS summary judgment to the plaintiff as to liability with respect to the plaintiff's Lanham Act claim only. The court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's request for summary judgment on its Michigan unfair competitio n claim. If the plaintiff believes that the claims are viable under Michigan law, the plaintiff may seek to renew its motion for judgment on the unfair competition claim in accordance with deadlines to be set by the Magistrate Judge. The defendant 's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 85 ) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 46 ) are DENIED. The plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the defendant's counter-claims (Docket No. 32 ) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. This case is currently set for trial on October 28, 2014, although it does not appear that any triable issues of liability remain. As soon as practicable, the Magistrate Judge shall hold a status conference with the parties. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/30/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
109
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that: 1) the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Defendant's counter-claims (Docket Entry No. 32) be DENIED as MOOT; 2) the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgm ent (Docket Entry No. 90) be GRANTED on the issue of the Defendant's liability on the Plaintiffs Lanham Act and Michigan common law claims and GRANTED as to the dismissal of the Defendant's counter-claims in all respects; 3) the Defendan t's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 85) be DENIED in all respects; and 4) the Defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 46) be DENIED. If this Report and Recommendation is adopted, further proceeding s will be necessary to address the scope of what injunctive relief is warranted and what damages, if any, are warranted in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 9/8/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)
|
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 Tennessee Middle 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.
