ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al
| ME2 Productions Inc |
| Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, Doe 5, Doe 6, Doe 7, Doe 8, Doe 9, Doe 10, Doe 11, Doe 12, Doe 13 and Doe 14 |
| 2:2017cv00465 |
| March 22, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Robert S. Lasnik |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| 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
60
AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Dkts. 46 , 48 , 52 , 50 ), signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Dkts. 46 , 48 , 50 , and 52 ). Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (TH)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER reinstating claims against Raul Gonzales; re Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER dismissing claims against Raul Gonzales, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Leave to Permit Alternative Service; granting alternative request for a fourteen day extension of the service deadline, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER Granting Leave for Preliminary Discovery; re Plaintiff's 5 Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (swt)
|
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 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.
