legal-news

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arti Entertainment LLC d/b/a City Cigar Lounge et al

26-cv-22805
Active Motion practice Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arti Entertainment LLC d/b/a City Cigar Lounge et al is a civil case with docket number 26-cv-22805. There is no available information about the case at this time.

Latest development

1:26-cv-22805 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arti Entertainment LLC d/b/a City Cigar Lounge et al

Motion · April 22, 2026

The court denied a motion to dismiss filed by Arti Entertainment LLC, which operated the City Cigar Lounge, in a lawsuit brought by Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. over unauthorized broadcasts of a boxing match. The motion was denied because the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for copyright infringement. This decision allows the lawsuit to proceed.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • No available information
  • Docket number 26-cv-22805
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
edit_note
Motion April 22, 2026

1:26-cv-22805 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arti Entertainment LLC d/b/a City Cigar Lounge et al

The court denied a motion to dismiss filed by Arti Entertainment LLC, which operated the City Cigar Lounge, in a lawsuit brought by Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. over unauthorized broadcasts of a boxing match. The motion was denied because the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for copyright infringement. This decision allows the lawsuit to proceed.

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

1 article
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 1 article

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

1 day ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.