Case Activity (51979)

1. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 POP MART Americas Inc. et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. et al

   Trademark | California Central

   Order

   ORDER GRANTING MATTHEW YARLING'S REQUEST TO APPEAR REMOTELY AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT 7-ELEVEN, INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM 190 by Judge Anne Hwang, re Request to Appear Remotely 190 : The Court, having read and considered Defendants, MAYER BROTHERS GROUP, INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 37950), HRBS ENTERPRISES, INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 34765), B&K SIDHU ENTERPRISES, INC. (D/B/A/ STORE NO. 32606), NEETTRIO INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 16027); SANDHU MCHENRY and MORRIS STORE, LLC, (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 42272), SANDHU SE STORES INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 42272), DHALIWAL BROS, INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NOS. 25801 AND 16254), KRISH HARBANS, INC. (D/B/A 7-ELEVEN STORE NO. 33278), and SUKHVINDERJEET SANDHU (collectively "Defendants") request that the Court excuse the personal attendance of Matthew Yarling, Esq., at the August 12, 2026 hearing on Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.'s Motion to For Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, and good cause appearing, ORDERS that the request is GRANTED and that Mr. Yarling is excused from personally attending the hearing provided that he attend by Zoom. (see document for further details) (bm)

2. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 Gastelum v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

   Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | California Southern

   Minute Order (No Time)

   Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 27, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, given that Plaintiff failed to serve the amended complaint for more than 120 days and took no action to prosecute this case. See Dkt. 10. Despite the Court's order requiring a response by March 11, 2026, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Order to Show Cause, requested an extension of time, nor taken any action to prosecute this case for over four months. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and timely serve the amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring dismissal if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed). The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/28/2026. (mk)

3. 51977 additional result(s)