Matsumoto v. DVO Enterprises
| Shoichi Matsumoto |
| DVO Enterprises |
| 2:2022cv00443 |
| July 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Dustin B Pead |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 0501 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Modification of Docket re docket entry 6 : Error: Entry is stricken, was filed in wrong case. (alf) |
| Filing 6 Modification of Docket: Per order #4 and instruction of chambers, original complaint is now sealed along with civil cover sheet. A complaint that includes pseudonyms only is attached to docket entry #2 . Motion #3 is now sealed. Caption of case and names of plaintiff parties has been modified. (alf) Modified on 7/29/2022 - stricken, filed in wrong case (alf). |
Filing 5
ORDER TO PROPOSE SCHEDULE - Plaintiff must propose a schedule to defendant in the form of a draft Attorney Planning Meeting Report within twenty-one (21) days after any defendant has been served or any defendant has appeared, unless any party is appearing pro se. See order for additional instructions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 7/5/22. (alf)
|
| Filing 4 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to DVO Enterprises. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (ks) |
| Filing 3 Report on the Filing of an action mailed to the Register of Copyrights Office. (ks) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4381153) filed by Shoichi Matsumoto. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1: Copyright Registration, #2 Exhibit 2: Infringing Uses, #3 Exhibit 3: Demand Letters, #4 Civil Cover Sheet ) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead (Nadesan, Karthik) |
| Filing 1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead. Plaintiff Shoichi Matsumoto is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402. by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts #PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (ks) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Utah 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
| Search for this case: Matsumoto v. DVO Enterprises | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Shoichi Matsumoto | |
| Represented By: | Karthik Nadesan |
| Represented By: | Michael B. Beck |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: DVO Enterprises | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
