Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al v. Lafayette et al
| Sprint Solutions, Inc. and Sprint Communications Company L.P. |
| Irvin Bryan Lafayette, Eddie D. Danley, Emanuel Lafayette, Marcus S. Hall, John Does 1-20 and Jane Does 1-20 |
| 2:2015cv02595 |
| September 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Memphis Office |
| Shelby |
| Charmiane G. Claxton |
| Samuel H. Mays |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
| 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
51
ORDER on damages: granting Plaintiffs' request for actual damages under the Lanham Act; granting Plaintiffs' request for treble damages under the Lanham Act; and determining Plaintiffs' punitive damage award. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 7/10/2018. (Mays, Samuel)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Motion for Default Judgment 47 . Default Judgment is denied as to Defendants Emanuel Lafayette and Marcus S. Hall. Default Judgment is granted as to Defendants Irvin Lafayette and Eddie Danley. Plaintiffs a re entitled to permanent injunctive relief that is enforceable against Defendants Irvin Lafayette and Eddie Danley. Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages is granted. Plaintiffs have supplied insufficient support for their alleged damages. Plaintiffs must file support for their damages not later than July 6, 2018. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 6/22/2018. (Mays, Samuel)
|
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 Western 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.
