Driving Force Technologies, Inc. v. Panda Distribution, Inc. d/b/a Panda Security USA et al
| Driving Force Technologies, Inc. |
| Panda Distribution, Inc. d/b/a Panda Security USA and Panda Security Internacional |
| 4:2010cv00024 |
| January 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Sherman Office |
| Collin |
| Don D. Bush |
| Richard A. Schell |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
212
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 186 Report and Recommendations, Granting in Part Denying in Part 138 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Panda Distribution, Inc., Panda Security S.L.. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 7/17/12. (cm, )
|
|
Filing
186
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 138 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief filed by Panda Distribution, Inc., Panda Security S.L.. Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judges report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(c). Signed by Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush on 5/10/12. (cm, )
|
|
Filing
156
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER STRIKING EXPERT TESTIMONY OF BRIAN F. CASTO. Signed by Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush on 1/31/12. (cm, )
|
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 Texas Eastern 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.
