Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Amster Rothstein
-
Motion | Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al
Trademark | California Central
Appear Pro Hac Vice (G-64)
First APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Michael M. Steinmetz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Previously Paid on 5/6/2024, Receipt No. 37413692) filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order on application of non-resident attorney) (Garson, Robert)
-
Notice | Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al
Trademark | California Central
Notice of Deficiency in Electronically filed Pro Hac Vice Application (G-112C) - optional html form
NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: First APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Michael M. Steinmetz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-37413692) 116 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 83-2.1.3.3(d) Certificate of Good Standing not attached for every state court listed to which the applicant has been admitted. Other error(s) with document(s): NJ missing. (lt)
-
Order | Filed: May 06, 2024 Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC., ET. AL.,
Trademark | New York Southern
Order
ORDER granting 313 Letter Motion to Compel. The request is GRANTED. Under Rule 26(b)(1), the settlement agreement (including the amount) is "nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim." Under the same provisio n, it is "proportional" because there is no burden to produce it. And the material "need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." On that point, the Court is not deciding whether the settlement amount would be admissi ble on the reasonable-royalty issue. If Olivet seeks to admit the settlement amount to "prove... the validity or amount of a disputed claim," it should be prepared to show that the settlement is not "consideration in compromising... the claim." Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1). That is, the parties should consider whether Wenger's claims against all defendants are the same "claim" under Rule 408. See Clifford S. Fishman & Anne Toomey McKenna, Jones on Evidence § 22:19 (7th ed. 2023). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 5/6/2024) (vfr)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login