Broadspring, Inc. v. Congoo, L.L.C. et al
| Broadspring, Inc. |
| Congoo, L.L.C., Adblade, Ashraf Nashed, Eric Clark and Does |
| Ashraf Nashed, Does, Congoo, L.L.C., Eric Clark and Adblade |
| Broadspring, Inc. |
| 1:2013cv01866 |
| March 20, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Orange |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| Plaintiff |
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
339
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 311 MOTION for Costs in Advance of Entry of Judgment filed by Adblade, Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 314 MOTION for Permanent Injunction . MOTION for New Trial MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Broadspring, Inc., 326 CROSS MOTION to Approve Plaintiff's Proposed Costs filed by Broadspring, Inc. For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' and Pl aintiff's motions for taxation of costs are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are entitled to taxation of costs in the amount of $44,762.85, and Plaintiff is entitled to $10,755.57 in costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plai ntiff's motions for a permanent injunction, a new trial, and attorneys' fees are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at docket numbers 311, 314, and 326, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/24/2016) (ama) Modified on 2/24/2016 (ama).
|
|
Filing
266
OPINION AND ORDER re: 219 MOTION to Direct That Defendants Proposed Verdict Forms And Jury Charges Be Given To the Jury filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 211 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Congoos Total Gross Revenues and Profits and Plaintiffs Prospective Corrective Advertising Costs filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 204 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Jurys Consideration of an Implied Falsity Theory For Plaintiffs Lanham Act Cause of Action filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 217 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Statements as a Basis For Plaintiffs Defamation Claim filed by Congo o, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 206 MOTION in Limine Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 and 802 to Exclude Certain of Plaintiffs Trial Exhibits filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 199 MOTION in Limine Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(B) filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 202 MOTION in Limine Plaintiff's Notice of Motions in Limine (Nos. 1-5) filed by Broadspring, Inc., [242 ] MOTION to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands filed by Broadspring, Inc.: For the foregoing reasons, some of the parties' motions are granted, some are denied, and some are granted in part and den ied in part. The parties are directed to confer in light of the Court's rulings and, to the extent that any disputes warrant further attention in advance of trial, shall raise them at or before the final pretrial conference on January 6, 201 5. In addition, the parties shall confer with respect to any limiting instructions that are warranted in light of the Court's rulings, and shall propose any such limiting instructions in advance of trial. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 217, 219, and 242. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/29/2014) (tn)
|
|
Filing
258
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 251 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Norman C. Simon dated November 12, 2014 filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed: that Defendants' motion to reopen discovery is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Docket Number 251. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/18/2014) (tn)
|
|
Filing
163
OPINION AND ORDER re: 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Broadspring, Inc., 102 MOTION to Strike the Expert Report and Preclude the Testimony of Lance James filed by Broadspring, Inc., 98 MOTION for Sanctions due to spoliation of evidence filed by Broadspring, Inc., 75 MOTION to Amend/Correct 27 Amended Complaint filed by Broadspring, Inc., 94 MOTION to Preclude Daubert Motio n To Exclude Lafferty Report And Testimony filed by Adblade, Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed, 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Congoo, L.L.C., Rafael Consentino, Ashraf Nashed. Accordingly, the parties a re ORDERED to show cause, in writing, why the listed documents should remain filed under seal or in redacted form, within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order. Any replies shall be filed within three weeks of the date of this Opinion an d Order. If, within two weeks, neither party makes a filing arguing why a particular document should remain under seal, Plaintiff shall promptly file the relevant document on ECF in unredacted form. For the reasons stated above, Defendants& #039; motion for summary judgment is denied except with respect to the tortious interference claim against Defendant Nashed, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, Plaintiff's motion to exclude James's testimony is gran ted in part and denied in part, Defendants' motion to exclude Lafferty's testimony is denied, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions based on improper AEO designations is granted, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions based on spol iation of evidence is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted. As a result of those rulings, the only remaining claims are Plaintiff's claims against Congoo, Nash ed, and Cosentino under the Lanham Act and for defamation, and against Congoo and Cosentino for tortious interference. As noted above, within one week of the date of this Opinion and Order, Defendants must submit any opposition to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint in unredacted form, in a memorandum not to exceed ten pages. By that same date, Defendants must also re-designate the above-referenced documents and produce them to Plaintiffs. Within two weeks of the date of this Opi nion and Order, (1) Plaintiff must submit any challenges to redactions that Defendants make to the re-designated documents; (2) Plaintiff must submit a consolidated application for costs and fees related to the re-designation motion and the spoli ation motion; and (3) either party must submit any opposition to the public filing of a document listed in the Appendix to this Opinion and Order, including the memoranda filed in support of and in opposition to the re-designation motion. Within t hree weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order, (1) Defendants may submit any reply to Plaintiff's challenges to redactions to the re-designated documents; (2) Defendants may submit any opposition to Plaintiff's application for costs a nd fees; (3) either party may submit a reply regarding the public filing of a document listed in the Appendix, to the extent that any opposition has been submitted in the first place; and (4) Plaintiff may submit a reply to any opposition Defenda nts submit to the unredacted filing of the Second Amended Complaint, in a memorandum not to exceed ten pages. Under the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 13), the parties' Joint Pretrial Order and all related filings required by the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases are due thirty days from the date of this Opinion and Order. In light of the quantity and nature of the submissions that the parties need to make in the coming weeks, h owever, the Court will grant the parties forty-five days from today, rather than thirty, to make those submissions. The parties should be prepared to go to trial approximately two weeks thereafter. Moreover, the parties shall immediately advise th e Court by joint letter if they are interested in a referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge for purposes of settlement. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 75, 94, 97, 98, 102, and 108. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/20/2014) (mro)
|
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 New York Southern 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.
