Everly v. Everly et al
| Isaac Donald Everly |
| Patrice Y. Everly, Phillip J. Everly, Christopher Everly, The Phillip Everly Family Trust and Everly and Sons Music (BMI) |
| Everly and Sons Music (BMI), Christopher Everly, Patrice Y. Everly, The Phillip Everly Family Trust and Phillip J. Everly |
| Isaac Donald Everly |
| 3:2017cv01440 |
| November 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Aleta A. Trauger |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 0101 |
| None |
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
104
ORDER: The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for the plaintiff and to dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety, with prejudice. This is the final order in this case, for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/4/2021. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/22/2020. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
|
|
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Before the court is a question regarding the scope of the Sixth Circuit's remand. The court construes the defendants' recently filed Brief (Doc. No. 63 ) on that issue as a motion for clarification as to the scope o f remand as well as motion for leave to amend both the operative scheduling order and the defendants' Answer. The defendants' request for a clarification of the scope of the proceedings on remand is GRANTED, as follows: the remand was gene ral, and the defendants cannot be deemed to have waived the arguments raised in their Rule 59 motion. The defendants' implicit request to amend the ICMO to extend the deadline for amending pleadings and their request to amend their Answer to add a statute-of-limitations defense based on the 1972 David Frost show are DENIED for the reasons stated herein. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/22/2020. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vh)
|
|
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff is AWARDED his costs in the amount of $6,706.66, as set forth in the Bill of Costs, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1). The original Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 33 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Amended Motion (Doc. No. 44 ), seeking attorneys fees and litigation expenses in excess of those enumerated in the Bill of Costs, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/3/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (jm)
|
|
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT: Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19 ), filed by plaintiff Isaac Donald Everly, to which the defendants have filed a Response (Doc. No. 22 ), and the plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 24 ). For the reasons stated herein, the court will grant the motion. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/6/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jm)
|
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.
