Search for: "Defendant Doe 1"
Results 81 - 100
of 46,029
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2008, 3:21 pm
December 1, 2008): Asking the Defendant to exit the truck did not turn the reasonable detention into an unreasonable one. [read post]
4 Dec 2016, 3:13 pm
Id. at *1 & n.1. [read post]
8 May 2013, 7:33 am
United Online, Inc., et. al., 1-13-cv-00343 (ILND May 3, 2013, Order) (Lefkow, J.). [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 12:17 pm
Does 1-14, and three other cases, District Judge James S. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 7:52 am
Cir. 2017)] does not address whether a physical place of a corporate affiliate or subsidiary or alter ego or agent can, for venue purposes, be attributed to the named defendant in a case. . . . [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 2:17 pm
Does 1-39, and four similar BitTorrent downloading cases, in the Southern District of Iowa, the cases were dismissed and severed as to all defendants other than Doe 1, by District Judge Stephanie M. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 7:59 am
Case citation: Does 1-6 v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 4:29 am
Courts routinely find good cause exists when Plaintiff's makes:(1) a prima facie showing of infringement,(2) there is no other way to identify the Doe Defendant, and(3) there is a risk an ISP will destroy its logs prior to the [Rule 26(f) conference].quoting UMG Recording, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 1:36 pm
Cleveland, holding that John Doe claims do not relate back under FRCP 15(c)(1)(C), because intentionally pleading a Doe placeholder when the plaintiff does not know the defendant's name is not a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 7:38 am
[The other defendant] likewise does not have a regular and established place of business in the District. . . . [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 10:21 am
Does 1-5, a BitTorrent downloading case, the plaintiff has filed papers opposing defendant John Doe #4's motion to dismiss, sever, and quash.The motion papers include a declaration by a "forensic investigator", employed by a company in Germany, who makes claims about the technology he uses.Plaintiff's memorandum of law in oppositionDeclaration of Tobias FieserExhibit AExhibit B Commentary & discussion:Slashdot var addthis_config =… [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 7:08 am
Doe 1 v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 11:59 am
Does 1–3757, 2011 U.S. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:30 am
Supp. 974, 976 (D.N.J. 1982) have considered this issue and found that the presence of claims against a debtor defendant protected by the automatic stay does not preclude removal by a non-debtor defendant. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 12:12 pm
(a) Rule 54(d)(1) gives courts discretion to award costs to prevailing parties, but this discretion can be displaced by a federal statute or FRCP that “provides otherwise,” i.e., is “contrary” to Rule 54(d)(1).Contrary to the argument of Marx and the United States, as amicus, language of the original 1937 version of the Rule does not suggest that any “express provision” for costs should displace Rule 54(d....Congress did not intend… [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Bank N.A. and Does 1 through 25 (yet to be named or fictitious defendants). [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 7:18 am
Given that the asserted [patent] claims survived the reexamination proceedings, this factor does not weigh exclusively in [defendant's] favor and cannot be dispositive as to whether [defendant] acted in an objectively reckless manner." [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 5:06 am
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 2:55 am
Does 1-44, No. 13 C 3825, Slip Op. [read post]
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]
