Search for: "Defendant Does 1-9"
Results 1 - 20
of 8,880
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2007, 10:28 am
Does 1-9, the Columbus, Ohio, case targeting Ohio State University, where three defendants --John Does #1, 5, and #9 -- have made motions, the Court has stayed enforcement of its ex parte order.Also we have obtained copies of the motion papers served on behalf of John Does #5 and 9. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:34 pm
Starlet Battle, decided on 9/27/13, will help put this issue to rest. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 5:26 pm
Does 1-11, the District Court has granted the defendant John Doe #9's motion for severance, and severed as to Doe #9 and all other defendants except John Doe #1.District Judge Kathleen O'Malley rejected the RIAA's argument that severance was premature, agreed with the authorities that had granted severance, and dismissed the authorities cited by the RIAA as providing insufficient analysis,… [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 9:20 am
[Note: the per curiam opinion does not include a factual summary or legal analysis. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 10:38 am
The post Does a No Contact Order Apply While the Defendant Is in Jail? [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 3:34 am
Does 1-22, No. 11 C 2984, Slip Op. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 1:59 am
The motion of Ohio State University students "John Does 5 and 9", in Arista v. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 6:13 am
Does 1-9, in Columbus, Ohio. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 1:16 pm
Hammond, Indiana -- Copyright lawyers for TCYK LLC of Los Angeles, CA sued for copyright infringement in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that John Does 1-9, all allegedly located in Indiana, infringed the copyrighted work "The Company You Keep," which has been registered by the U.S. [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 4:21 pm
Does 1-4, after the university advised the Court that it could not identify John Does #8, 9, and 14 to a reasonable degree of technical certainty, Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the letter a motion to quash, and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants:The Court treats Boston University's 9/23/08 Letter as a Motion to Quash and GRANTS the motion with respect to Doe Defendants # 8, 9, and 14. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 9:08 pm
Does 1-4. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 4:46 pm
Does 1-9, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, case targeting Carnegie Mellon students, in which a student -- appearing pro se -- succeeded in challenging the misjoinder of John Does, but failed to get dismissal of the complaint or quashing of the subpoena, the Magistrate Judge's ruling has now been affirmed by the District Court Judge.The appeal has been pending for approximately one year.November 28, 2008, Order Affirming Rulings of Magistrate Judge*-->*… [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:56 am
Does 1-316, No. 10 C 6677, Slip Op. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 10:50 am
Innovative Financial Partners, LLC,1 a magistrate judge held that the defendants’ decision to withhold funds from a payment required under a settlement agreement when the plaintiff refused to provide a Form W-9 did not violate the agreement. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 4:30 am
§ 1453(b) does not change the long standing rule that only original defendants can remove. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 1:55 pm
or “Does 1-50, inclusive”). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 6:16 am
Table of Contents Section 1: Use of Fictitious Names or Pseudonyms in Connecticut Courts Table 1: John or Jane Doe Defendants in Civil Matters Table 2: John or Jane Doe Defendants in Summary Process Matters Section 2: Use of Fictitious Business Names in Connecticut Table 3: Use of Fictitious Business Names Section 3: Criminal Impersonation in Connecticut Published: 6/6/2013 9:20 AM [read post]
12 May 2012, 10:48 am
Does 1-9, CV 11-1154 (E.D.N.Y.) [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 1:05 pm
Rule 9-1(5)(d) provides an even more punishing outcome as the plaintiff is not only deprived of costs he or she would otherwise receive, but must also pay the defendant’s costs subsequent to the offer to settle. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 7:13 am
Apple Inc., 1-17-cv-00223 (DED August 9, 2017, Order) (Kearney, USDJ) [read post]
