Cases 21 - 29 of 29
Kay Celine, Inc. v. Stein Mart, Inc. et al
as 2:2009cv03080
Plaintiff:
Kay Celine, Inc. and Kay Celine, Inc.
Defendant:
Stein Mart, Inc., Sienna Rose, Inc., DOES and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Anonymous Online Speakers v. USDC-NVR
as 09-71265
:
In re: ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
Petitioner:
ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RENO
Real Party In Interest:
QUIXTAR, INC., SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT TEAM, LLC, APOLLO WORKS HOLDINGS, INC. and others
Knapp v. Smith Micro Software, Inc. et al
as 3:2008cv02054
Plaintiff:
Jim Knapp
Defendant:
Smith Micro Software, Inc., Allume Systems, Inc. and Anonymizer, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
County of Sacramento v. Turbomeca S.A. et al
as 2:2008cv01588
Defendant:
Turbomeca S.A., Turbomeca S.A., Turbomeca S.A. and others
Plaintiff:
County of Sacramento
Cause Of Action: Diversity
v. ESA Environmental Specialists, Inc.
as 3:2008fj80115
Movant:
Anonymous Poster on Yahoo! and Anonymous Poster on Yahoo!
v. ESA Environmental Specialists, Inc.
as 3:2008mc80115
Movant:
Anonymous Poster on Yahoo! and Anonymous Poster on Yahoo!
County of Sacramento v. Turbomeca, S.A. et al
as 2:2007at00634
Plaintiff:
County of Sacramento
Defendant:
Turbomeca, S.A., Turbomeca USA, Turbomeca Engine Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
County of Sacramento v. Turbomeca, S.A. et al
as 2:2007cv01398
Plaintiff:
County of Sacramento
Defendant:
Turbomeca, S.A., Turbomeca USA, Turbomeca Engine Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Tama Plastic Ind v. M & A Karatzis S A, et al
as 2:2001cv02332
Plaintiff:
Tama Plastic Industry
Defendant:
M & A Karatzis S A, Rolling Hills Plastics Inc, Pacon Paper Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Patent Infringement
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.
