Technology Holdings Worldwide, Inc. v. Lumari Capital, LLC

Summary

Technology Holdings Worldwide sues Lumari Capital for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Entities in this case

Parties

Technology Holdings Worldwide, Inc. (plaintiff) Lumari Capital, LLC (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #502026-08-19

   Reopen Case

2. #482026-07-20

   Extension of Time

3. 2026-07-20

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time

4. 2026-05-31

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time

5. #462026-05-27

   Extension of Time

6. #452026-04-06

   AO 120 Form Trademark - Case Terminated - Submitted

7. #442026-04-06

   ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court having been advised at ECF No. 42 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without pre judice to the right to reopen the action within sixty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not executed. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within sixty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafte r may be denied solely on that basis. Requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settle ment agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing a settlement agreement that is submitted to the Court by the deadline to reopen, is "so ordered" by the Court, and is filed on the docket in this matter. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on 4/6/2026) (ar)

8. 2026-04-03

   Pretrial Conference - Initial

9. #432026-04-02

   Letter

10. #422026-03-31

    Proposed Consent Order

11. #412026-03-25

    ORDER with respect to 38 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 5.I of this Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, by April 2, 2026, the non-moving party must notify the Court whether it intends to file an amended pleading or rely on the pleading being attacked. If Plaintiff elects to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by April 13, 2026. If Plaintiff elects not to amend the pleadings, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 13, 2026. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by April 20, 2026. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on 3/25/2026) (sgz)

12. #402026-03-25

    Order for Initial Pretrial Conference

13. #392026-03-24

    Proposed Case Management Plan

14. 2026-02-18

    Settlement Conference

15. 2026-02-11

    Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

16. 2025-09-24

    Notice Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion

17. 2025-09-19

    Notice Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion

18. 2025-09-19

    Notice Regarding Deficient Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

19. 2025-09-18

    Notice to Attorney to Submit AO 120 Form/AO 121 Form

20. 2025-09-18

    Case Opening Initial Assignment Notice

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.