AT&T Mobility LLC v. Sapatin et al
Plaintiff: AT&T Mobility LLC
Defendant: Marc Sapatin, Sapatin Nguyen Enterprises, Inc., Sapatin Enterprises, Inc., Nguyen Lam, Kyra Evans, Prashant Vira, Swift Unlocks, Inc. and John Does
Case Number: 2:2015cv01462
Filed: September 11, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: XX US, Outside District
Presiding Judge: Ricardo S Martinez
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. ยง 1030
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER re Parties' 69 Stipulated MOTION to Extend Stay. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than 12/15/2022 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
December 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 68 ORDER re Parties' 67 Joint Motion to Extend Stay. The Court continues the current stay of the case. AT&T shall promptly dismiss with prejudice all claims against each Defendant whose criminal proceeding is final and has resulted in AT&T having the opportunity to request restitution against that Defendant. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than 6/1/2022 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
September 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER granting Parties' 65 Stipulated Motion of Dismissal with Prejudice of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sapatin Enterprises, Inc. and Sapatin Nguyen Enterprises, Inc. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
September 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER granting Parties' 63 Stipulated Motion. Defendant Marc Sapatin is dismissed with prejudice solely with respect to the claims Plaintiff asserts against Defendant Marc Sapatin. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
June 1, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER GRANTING 61 JOINT MOTIONTO EXTEND STAY. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than December 15, 2021 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
February 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER granting the parties' 59 Joint Motion to Extend Stay. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than June 1, 2021 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
November 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER granting the Parties' 56 Joint Motion to Extend Stay. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than March 1, 2021 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
June 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER granting parties' 53 Joint Motion to Extend Stay. AT&T will report to the Court by no later than December 1, 2020 regarding the current status of all federal criminal investigations into the Defendants and whether there are grounds that would warrant allowing the case to remain open. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
March 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 48 Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal and Reopen the Case. Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court hereby sets aside its September 23, 2019 47 Order of Dismissal and reinstates this case. AT&T's Complaint so lely as to Defendant Nguyen Lam is hereby DISMISSED. This case is hereby stayed until June 1, 2020, subject to the additional conditions described in this order. Plaintiff's Status Report due by 6/1/2020. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
September 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER OF DISMISSAL signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, for failure to prosecute. (LC)
November 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER granting Defendants' 44 Unopposed Motion for Fifth Temporary Stay of Proceedings. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH)
May 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER granting defendants' unopposed 41 Motion for fourth temporary stay of proceedings by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Sapatin et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: AT&T Mobility LLC
Represented By: David A Bateman
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: Marc Sapatin
Represented By: Daniel D DeLue
Represented By: Douglas P Levinson
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: Sapatin Nguyen Enterprises, Inc.
Represented By: Daniel D DeLue
Represented By: Douglas P Levinson
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: Sapatin Enterprises, Inc.
Represented By: Daniel D DeLue
Represented By: Douglas P Levinson
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: Nguyen Lam
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: Kyra Evans
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: Prashant Vira
Represented By: Avi J. Lipman
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: Swift Unlocks, Inc.
Represented By: Avi J. Lipman
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: John Does
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.


Why Is My Information Online?