Sullivan, Amy v. Flora, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Amy Lee Sullivan
Defendant: Flora, Inc., Designomotion, Inc. and Eva (Yu-Fei) Kao
Case Number: 3:2015cv00298
Filed: May 18, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Office: Madison Office
County: Sauk
Presiding Judge: William M. Conley
Presiding Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Copyrights
Cause of Action: 17 U.S.C. ยง 101
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
October 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 377 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The court holds that the new trial in this case must include both the number of individual works at issue and the amount of statutory damages for each work.2. The court certi fies this issue for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because the issue is a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 3. In accordance with § 1292(b), this case is stayed for ten days to allow the parties to file an interlocutory appeal, or until the appeal is resolved, whichever is later. 4. If no party file s an interlocutory appeal within ten days, the clerk of court is directed to schedule a conference with Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker to set deadlines for motions in limine and other trial materials and to set new dates for a trial and final pretrial conference. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/23/2023. (voc)
February 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 352 ORDER denying 349 Motion for Finding of Contempt. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/11/2020. (kwf)
December 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 342 ORDER on Limited Remand. Defendant Flora, Inc.'s response to plaintiff Amy Sullivan's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether her 33 copyrighted illustrations constitute separate works for determining a statutory damages award is due on or before January 21, 2020; plaintiff's reply is due January 31, 2020. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/20/2019. (kwf)
June 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 327 ORDER: plaintiff's bill of costs is granted in part in the amount of $30,553.33; denying plaintiff's 286 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying defendant's 295 Motion for New Trial; denying plaintiff's 315 Motion to Enforce Judgment at this time; and granting in part and denying in part defendant's 318 Motion to Stay Enforcement. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 06/29/2018. (mfh)
April 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 261 OPINION AND ORDER on Damages. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/24/2017. (kwf)
April 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 243 ORDER denying 242 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/18/2017. (jls)
April 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 240 Order On Statutory Damages. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/17/2017. (jls)
April 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 226 ORDER granting 128 Joint Motion to Allow Witness Use of Computer; granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/14/2017. (bgw)
April 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 205 ORDER after final pretrial conference. Telephonic hearing set for April 14, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.; plaintiff to initiate call to the court. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 04/12/2017. (mfh)
December 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 117 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Modification of Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/16/2016. (kwf)
October 7, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 101 ORDER denying 51 Motion for Summary Judgment, striking the trial date and setting an in-person hearing on October 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. to address any remaining discovery issues. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/07/2016. (mfh)
August 12, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 64 OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting 26 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Defendant's answer is due on or before August 26, 2016. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/12/2016. (kwf)
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 Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sullivan, Amy v. Flora, Inc. 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: Amy Lee Sullivan
Represented By: Elijah Byrnes Van Camp
Represented By: Harry E. Van Camp
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: Flora, Inc.
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: Designomotion, Inc.
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: Eva (Yu-Fei) Kao
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?