Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-17
| Venice PI, LLC |
| Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, Doe 6, Doe 7, Doe 8, Doe 9, Doe 10, Doe 11, Doe 12, Doe 13, Doe 14, Doe 15, Doe 16 and Doe 17 |
| 2:2017cv01074 |
| July 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Thomas S. Zilly |
| 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
67
MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 66 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss; dismissing the Amended Complaint and this action without prejudice. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT) (cc: Defendant Christopher Cobb via USPS)
|
|
Filing
63
MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 61 Motion to Resume Cases; directing plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before 11/16/2018, why the Court should not, in light of Cobbler, dismiss the amended complaint. Any objection by a defendant to plaintiff's response to this show cause order shall be filed by 12/7/2018. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT) (cc: Christopher Cobb via USPS)
|
|
Filing
20
MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint; The deadline for plaintiff to effect service is EXTENDED from October 12, 2017, to October 30, 2017. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Expedited Discovery, signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (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.
