No. 24-77

GeLab Cosmetics LLC v. Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co., Ltd., et al.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (2)
Tags: abstention circuit-split civil-procedure colorado-river-doctrine federal-abstention federal-courts judicial-proceedings parallel-proceedings procedural-stay state-court-litigation
Key Terms:
TradeSecret
Latest Conference: 2025-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in affirming the district court's stay of federal proceedings under the Colorado River doctrine

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s stay of federal proceedings under the Colorado River doctrine when substantial doubt exists as to whether the state court proceedings will fully resolve the federal action, deepening a conflict among circuits on the necessity of exact parallelism between state and federal proceedings.

Docket Entries

2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-10
Reply of GeLab Cosmetics LLC submitted.
2024-12-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-23
Reply of GeLab Cosmetics LLC submitted.
2024-12-23
2024-12-09
Brief of respondents Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co., Ltd., et al. in opposition filed.
2024-10-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 9, 2024.
2024-09-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 15, 2024 to December 16, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-09-12
Response Requested. (Due October 15, 2024)
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-22

Attorneys

GeLab Cosmetics LLC
Tianyu JuGlacier Law LLP, Petitioner
Tianyu JuGlacier Law LLP, Petitioner
Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co. Ltd. et al.
Nancy Anne TempleKatten & Temple, LLP, Respondent
Nancy Anne TempleKatten & Temple, LLP, Respondent
Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co., Ltd., et al.
Mitchell B. KattenKatten & Temple, LLP, Respondent
Mitchell B. KattenKatten & Temple, LLP, Respondent