Legal Opinion

Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. Patel

District Court, M.D. Tennessee

Decided July 27, 2020No. 2:19-cv-00015Unknown

1Opinion

FIONR T THHEE U MNIIDTEDDL ES TDAISTTERSI DCITS TORFI TCETN CNOEUSRSETE COOKEVILLE DIVISION LUXOTTICA GROUP, S.p.A., an Italian ) corporation, and OAKLEY, INC., a ) Washington corporation, ) ) Case No. 2:19-cv-00015 Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) 111 PIT STOP, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM Pending is Plaintiffs Luxottica Group, S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Defendants 111 Pit Stop, Inc. and Pareshbai Patel. (Doc. No. 27). Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion, and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. v. Propride, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  2. Thomson v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Daddy's Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy's Family Music CenterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  4. Ford Motor Co. v. CrossDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2006
  5. Wynn Oil Company, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. American Way Service Corporation, and Thomas A. Warmus, Defendants-Appellants/cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991

9 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