Case Activity (4707)

1. Utility | Filed: August 07, 2026 | Entered: August 07, 2026 LL Whitfield Family Trust v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC et al

   Trademark | North Carolina Eastern

   Motion Submitted

   Motion Submitted to Chief Judge Richard E. Myers, II regarding 200 MOTION to Seal Document 196 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit,,,, 192 PROPOSED SEALED Response, 194 PROPOSED SEALED Response Filed by Plaintiff in Response to Disney Shopping's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Collins, S)

2. Order | Filed: August 05, 2026 Kharat v. Marvel Studios, LLC; et al

   Copyright | New York Southern

   Order

   ORDER OF SERVICE: To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendants Marvel Studios, LLC, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., and Pascal Pictures, Inc. through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Process Receipt and Return (USM-285 form) for these Defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals all of the paperwork necessary for it to effect service upon these Defendants. The U.S. Mars hals Service, however, will not be able to effect service on the remaining Defendants, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Justin Kuritzkes, and Destin Daniel Cretton, without more information. Although under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is enti tled to reasonable assistance from the Court with respect to discovering a defendant's service address, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), here, the Complaint does not provide addresses for any of the individual Defendants, see Dkt. No. 2 (" Civil Cover Sheet"), or sufficient identifying information to permit the Court to issue a Valentin order. The Complaint, for instance, does not allege the states in which the individual Defendants reside or work, nor does it allege whether any of them are employees of the corporate Defendants. If Plaintiff provides sufficient identifying information for these individuals, the Court will consider issuing a Valentin order or otherwise directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on them, but declines to do so at this time. If the Complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summons issues, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiffs responsibility to request an extension of time for service). Finally, Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/5/2026) (rro) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.

3. 4705 additional result(s)