Arbit v Schneider Electric

I’m suing Schneider Electric for trademark infringement.

Here are the highlights of the lawsuit:

  1. I filed a complaint.
  2. Schneider Electric requested more time to file an answer. This was granted.
  3. I requested that the court reconsider the extension order. This motion was denied.
  4. Schneider Electric filed a motion to dismiss my complaint for improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.
  5. I filed a motion for expedited consideration of subpoenas duces tecum. This motion was denied. “Due to ongoing violations of Title 18 U.S. Code § 1512, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for expedited consideration for this motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum for self-represented Plaintiff, Stanislav Arbit.”
  6. I filed a motion for default entry. This was denied.
  7. I filed my response to Schneider Electric’s motion to dismiss.
  8. I filed an application for a temporary restraining order based on the following two declarations: Declaration 1 & Declaration 2. “There exists reasonable grounds to believe a sophisticated scheme of witness tampering and intimidation is being employed—presumably, in an effort to quash the business and legal threats I pose. The scheme is highly organized, resource intensive, and typically coupled with plausible deniability and a slew of odd characters. The underlining mechanics of their novel setup are, by design, difficult to express in a motion but involve multiple sections of 18 U.S. Code § 1512. The sheer complexity of this over-engineered system of subterfuge serves as a cover when misapplied to a pauper such as myself, Stanislav Arbit, Plaintiff.”






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *