Legal Opinion

Sionix Corp. v. Moorehead

District Court, S.D. California

Decided December 3, 2003No. CIV. 99CV1201-L(NLS), 525PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING WADE CO-WART’S MOTION TO EXECUTE ON THE INJUNCTION BOND

LORENZ, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Wade Cowart’s motion to execute against bond. The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

BACKGROUND

Jack Moorehead is the inventor and co-inventor of water purification technology. Moorehead formed a company called Automatic Control Technologies, Inc. (“ACT”). In 1994, Automatic Control Corporation (“ACC”) purchased the assets and assumed selected liabilities of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Holden v. HagopianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  2. Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  3. Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Development Board of the State of Illinois, Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Hanover Insurance Company, Cross-Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
  4. Jack T. Hupp and Walkmaker, Inc. v. Siroflex of America, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
  5. Matek v. MuratCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Best Sunshine International LTD (BVI) v. Commonwealth Casino CommissionDistrict Court, Northern Mariana Islands · 2023
  2. Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, Jr.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API