Marine Concepts, LLC v. Koppitz et al
Missouri Western District Court | |
Judge: | Nanette K Laughrey |
Case #: | 2:20-cv-04129 |
Nature of Suit | 830 Property Rights - Patent |
Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement |
Case Filed: | Jul 22, 2020 |
Terminated: | Nov 30, 2020 |
Last checked: Monday Jan 18, 2021 5:29 AM CST |
Counter Defendant
Marine Concepts, LLC
|
Represented By
|
Defendant
Richard Chris Koppitz
4707 Valhalla Court
Columbia, MO 65203 |
Represented By
|
Defendant
Premium Custom Covers LLC
4707 Valhalla Court
Columbia, MO 65203 |
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
Marine Concepts, LLC
415 Kaiser Industrial Drive
Kaiser, MO 65047 |
Represented By
|
TERMINATED PARTIES | |
Counter Claimant
Lawrence Fabric Structures, Inc.
Terminated: 11/30/2020
|
Represented By
|
Defendant
Lawrence Fabric Structures, Inc.
Terminated: 11/30/2020
3509 Tree Court Industrial Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63122 |
Represented By
|
Docket last updated: 3 hours ago |
Monday, November 30, 2020 | ||
54 | 54
8
pgs
order
Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Mon 11/30 1:17 PM
ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motion by Koppitz and PCC to dismiss the claims against them and compel arbitration is GRANTED. Any of the three parties to the arbitration may reopen this case by filing a motion seeking judicial review within 30 days of the resolution of the arbitration. Signed on 11/30/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) |
|
Tuesday, November 24, 2020 | ||
53 | 53
misc
Stipulation of Dismissal
Tue 11/24 5:59 PM
STIPULATION of dismissal by Lawrence Fabric Structures, Inc.. (Barrett, Alex) |
|
52 | 52
order
Order on Motion for More Definite Statement
Tue 11/24 10:18 AM
ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. On September 28, 2020, Defendant Lawrence Fabric Structures, Inc. filed a motion for more definite statement. Doc.19 . On October 7, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Doc.31 . The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See, e.g., In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc. , 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) ("It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect."). The motion for more definite statement directed at the original complaint therefore is moot. See Herkenhoff v. Supervalu Stores, Inc. , No. 13-1974 2014 WL 3894642, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2014) (denying motion for more definite statement as moot because it pertained to earlier version of the complaint). Accordingly, the Court DENIES as MOOT the motion for more definite statement (Doc.19 ). Signed on November 24, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) |