Legal Opinion
Penpower Technology Ltd. v. S.P.C. Technology
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 17, 2008No. Case 07-3621 SCPublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The present matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”) filed by the plaintiffs Penpower Technology Ltd., and Penpower Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Docket No. 23. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk of the Court entered default against all Defendants save S.P.C. Technology and GLZ Service, Inc. Docket Nos. 13, 22. Both of these Defendants, however, were voluntarily dismissed. Docket Nos. 5, 14. After…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCoolCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Allstate Beauty Products, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
- HTS, Inc. v. BoleyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2013
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.District Court, C.D. California · 2011
- Alli v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- KEMA, INC. v. KoperwhatsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.