The docket sheet indicates that after some initial scheduling issues, defendant Rykodisc filed a motion to dismiss and for a more definitive statement in June 2008 (Docket no. 17). On Sept. 3, 2008, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act claims (i.e., trademark claims), but denied the motion for a more definitive statement (Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(e)). (Docket no. 25). Unfortunately, the order refers to an August hearing for its reasoning, the transcript of which is not available.
Thereafter, defendant answered the amended complaint, and the parties are now litigating issues concerning leave to serve interrogatories.
[Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc.; case no. 08-cv-00396-WHP (S.D.N.Y. filed 1/15/08)]