THE CHIROPRACTIC NEUROLOGY CENTER OF TUPELO v. JOHNSON

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00219-GHD-DAS.

THE CHIROPRACTIC NEUROLOGY CENTER OF TUPELO; CHIROPRACTIC NEUROLOGY CONSULTANT PC d/b/a AMERICAN FUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGY INSTITUTE; DR. WILLIAM A. BARLOW, D.C.; and DR. MATTHEW C. MACKEY, D.C., Plaintiffs, v. DR. MICHAEL JOHNSON, D.C.; DR. MICHAEL JOHNSON d/b/a THE CENTER FOR QUALITY HEALTHCARE; DR. MICHAEL JOHNSON d/b/a JOHNSON METHOD CONSULTING; JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

The Chiropractic Neurology Center of Tupelo, Plaintiff, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS.

The Chiropractic Neurology Center of Tupelo, Plaintiff, represented by William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Chiropractic Neurology Consultant PC, Plaintiff, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Dr. William A. Barlow, Plaintiff, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Dr. Matthew C. Mackey, Plaintiff, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Dr. Michael Johnson, Defendant, represented by Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS, Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS, Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS, Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS, Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Dr. Michael Johnson, Counter Claimant, represented by Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Dr. William Barlow, Counter Defendant, represented by William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS.

Chiropractic Neurology Consultant PC, Counter Defendant, represented by William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS.

Dr. Matthew C. Mackey, Counter Defendant, represented by William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS.

The Chiropractic Neurology Center of Tupelo, Counter Defendant, represented by William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS.

Dr. Michael Johnson, Counter Claimant, represented by Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Dr. Michael Johnson, Counter Claimant, represented by Lamar Bradley Dillard , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Scott R. Hendrix , MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Dr. William A. Barlow, Counter Defendant, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Chiropractic Neurology Consultant PC, Counter Defendant, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

Dr. Matthew C. Mackey, Counter Defendant, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.

The Chiropractic Neurology Center of Tupelo, Counter Defendant, represented by James Roger Franks, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS, William Rufus Wheeler, Jr. , WHEELER & FRANKS & Tiffany K. Pharr , WHEELER & FRANKS LAW FIRM, PC.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Senior District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to exceed page limitation [108] in their memorandum brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, as well as in their memorandum brief in support of their reply to motion for summary judgment. Defendants request that they be allowed to file a memorandum brief in support of their motion for summary judgment of up to 50 pages in length, and a memorandum brief in support of their reply to motion for summary judgment of up to 20 pages in length. Plaintiffs' counsel has indicated he has no objection to the request. The Court finds the same is well taken.

THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' motion for leave to exceed page limitation [108] is GRANTED; Defendants may file a memorandum brief in support of their motion for summary judgment up to 50 pages in length, as well as a memorandum brief in support of their reply to motion for summary judgment up to 20 pages in length.

SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases