Legal Opinion

CPUS Mockingbird LP v. Daniel Langer, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided July 24, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00282Unknown

1Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 CPUS Mockingbird LP, No. CV-25-00282-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Daniel Langer, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 19.) The Court 16 will grant the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 At the default judgment stage, all factual allegations of the complaint, except those 19 relating to the amount of damages, are taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp.,

559 F.2d 20

557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 21 Plaintiff CPUS Mockingbird LP (“CPUS”) is a Delaware…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Michael Lacey v. Joseph ArpaioCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  2. Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCoolCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  3. Pepsico, Inc. v. California Security CansDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2002
  4. Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. PARTH ENTERPRISES, INC.District Court, C.D. California · 2010
  5. Northstar Financial Advisors Inc. v. Schwab InvestmentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API