DUO-REGEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
4463251 CANADA, INC., BATTERY REJUVENATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., BATTLIFE, INC., BATTLIFE, USA, JAX.IAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ELREHA ELEKTRONISCHE REGELUNGEN GMBH, ELREHA FLORIDA CORPORATION, JEAN PREVOST, JACK GARTNER, STEVE GARTNER, HANXIAN HUANG, ROBERT BEECHLER, JAY WINTER, FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ and ABDUL HAMAD EH, Defendants.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
April 2, 2014.
April 2, 2014.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Duo-Regen Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Edward P. Dutkiewicz , Law Office of Edward P. Dutkiewicz.
4463251 Canada, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Guthrie , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Sergio Edward Pagliery , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
Elreha Elektronische Regelungen GMBH, a German, International corporation, Defendant, represented by Melissa Rizzo , Adams & Reese, LLP.
Elreha Florida Corporation, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by Melissa Rizzo , Adams & Reese, LLP.
Jean Prevost, a natural person and citizen of Canada, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Guthrie , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Sergio Edward Pagliery , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
Robert Beechler, a natural person residing in Florida, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Guthrie , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Sergio Edward Pagliery , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
Jay Winter, a natural person residing in Florida, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Guthrie , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Sergio Edward Pagliery , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
Fernando Rodriguez, a natural person residing in Canada, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Guthrie , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Sergio Edward Pagliery , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
Abdul Hamadeh, a aatural person residing in Florida, Defendant, represented by Melissa Rizzo , Adams & Reese, LLP.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
ORDER
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT are five motions to dismiss (Dkts. 42, 43, 44, 49 & 50). Plaintiff has responded to each (Dkts. 45, 46, 52, 53 & 55). Upon consideration, the Motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff initially filed a 51 page, seven count Complaint against fifteen defendants, containing 115 paragraphs plus subparts, and attaching 257 pages of exhibits (Dkt. 1). Eleven ofthe defendants...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
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.