F.M. Tarbell Co. v. Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties et al
 
SummaryLawsuit
Summary
  
Court DocumentsCourt
Documents
  
Docket TextDocket
Text
  
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Tracker™
  
Docket TextRelated
Cases
  

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: T-F10-4048W
Court Case Number: 2:10-cv-04048-PSG -E
File Date: Friday, May 28, 2010
Plaintiff: F.M. Tarbell Co.
Plaintiff Counsel: David L. Aronoff, Gayle I. Jenkins, Saul S. Rostamian of Winston & Strawn LLP
Defendant: Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties
James Crotwell
Andrea Marquez
Richard Michael King
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Court: California Central District Court
Judge: Judge Philip S. Gutierrez
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick
Notes:

Docket Text
This may not be the most complete up-to-date docket information.
For daily updates on this case, sign-up for a Lawsuit Tracker.
See the box on the right side of this page for details on the Lawsuit Tracker


Date # Docket Text
5/28/2010 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants James Crotwell, Richard Michael King, Andrea Marquez, Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties. Case assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff F.M. Tarbell Co. (et) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
Need more info about this lawsuit?
Court Documents Instantly access recently filed official court documents
Docket Text Review activity within the case
Lawsuit Tracker™ Get automatic notifications of any new information about this case.
Related Cases Review similar cases found across multiple criteria


IP Lawfirms & Attorneys

Krongold Law Corp., P.C. Info




Home   |   About   |   Lawsuits   |   Register   |   Login   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Policy   |   Sitemap   |   RSS Feed   |   Contact

© Copyright 2008-2013 RFC Express — All Rights Reserved — Presented By Intellectual Property Today

RFC Express provides access to public lawsuit filings retrieved from the U.S. Federal District Courts.
These lawsuits, and associated information should not be considered findings of fact or liability. Nor do they reflect the views of RFC Express or any of its employees.
extended validation certificate