Fantastic Sams Salons Corp v Frank Moassesfar et al.
| Fantastic Sams Salon Corp. |
| Frank Moassesfar and Parvaneh Moassesfar |
| 2:2014cv06727 |
| August 27, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ralph Zarefsky |
| Otis D. Wright |
| Trademark |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
138
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS 129 AND TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS IN WRITING ONLY NO LATER THAN 6/14/17 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: the Court DENIES Fantastic Sams Motion in its entirety. Finally, as the Court more fully explained above, Fantastic Sams had no reasonable basis on which to assert that [h]ere, attorneys fees are authorized by contract. (Mot. at 6.) The Court therefore ORDERS Fantastic Sams counsel to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, no later than June 14, 2017, why the Court should not impose sanctions in the amount of $1,000 jointly and severally against Jonathan Michaels, Kathryn Harvey, Kristen Rodriguez, and MLGAutomotive Law, APLC, for making a factual and legal assertion to the Court without any reasonable basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). No hearing will be held. (lc)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (1) On or before May 29, 2017, Defendants shall either:(a) File and serve a written opposition to the Motion; or (b) File a written explanation with the Court as to why they cannot submit a written opposition to the Motion, and why the Court should not rule on the Motion without hearing opposition from Defendants. (2) If Defendants file a timely opposition to the Motion, Plaintiff may file and serve a reply no later than June 7, 2017.(3) The Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oralargument. Thus, the Court VACATES the hearing on the Motion. The Motion will be deemed under submission upon the completion of briefing or after expiration of the time in which to submit briefing, whichever is earlier. (lc)
|
|
Filing
127
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff Fantastic Sams Corp. shall recover from Defendants Frank Moassessfar and Parvaneh Moassesfar, jointly and severally, the amount of $60,384.60. Plaintiff Fantastic Sams Corp. shall recover from Def endants Frank Moassessfar and Parvaneh Moassesfar, jointly and severally, costs in an amount to be determined by a Bill of Costs. The Court dismisses Plaintiff Fantastic Sams Corp.s claim for trademark infringement without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 4/12/2017 (lc).
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 95 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 6/10/2016 (lc).
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS) 63 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 3/9/2016 (lc).
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date 70 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II as follows: Trial at 9:00 AM., on 6/7/2016; File Final Trial Exhibit Stipulation on 6/3/2016; Final Pretrial Conference at 1:30 PM; Motions in Limine to be Filed; Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Agreed-to Statement of Case on 5/16/2016; Lodge Pretrial Conference Order and Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation; File Trial briefs; File Contentions of Fact and law; Exhibit and Witness L ists; file Status Report Regarding Settlement; File Agreed Upon Set of Instructions and Verdict Forms; File Joint Statement Regarding Disputed Instructions, Verdicts, etc., on 5/9/2016; This order does not in any way affect Plaintiff's pending Motion for Pretrial Summary Judgment. (jp)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 29 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 1/21/2015 (lc).
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II.The Court ORDERS Fantastic Sams TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than Monday, November 10, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. This Order will be discharged upon the filing of an application for entry of default, or an answer from Defendants. If this action has settled in its entirety, the parties are required to inform the Court promptly. L.R. 16-15.7. (lc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
